Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRISTOL CLIFTON AND WEST OF ENGLAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

WHITGIFT CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WARLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return,
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the Police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December 1968."—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Notting Hill Housing Survey

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action his Department intends to take on the recent report on housing in Notting Hill.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): Responsibility for action on the issues with which the Report deals rests in the first instance with the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as primary housing authority.
I met representatives of the Council and of the Greater London Council on 11th June to discuss the steps to be taken following this report. A programme for action is now being formulated. The Ministry's officers are in continuing contact with the officers of the two authorities, and I shall be meeting the representatives of both councils again to review progress.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware that throughout the country Notting Hill is associated with slums, rent racketeering and borough council indifference? If the council refuses to take any action, would the Ministry step in and take direct housing powers in view of this notorious London scandal?

Mr. Greenwood: I have had constructive discussions with the Royal Borough and with the G.L.C. It is being a little pessimistic to assume that failure will attend the activities of the council; but I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

Housing Starts

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the number of housing starts for 1969 at the latest convenient date; what percentage change this represents from the corresponding period for 1968; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Greenwood: 139,400 dwellings were started in Great Britain during the


first five months of 1969, 17 per cent. fewer than in the corresponding period of 1968. Public starts reflect the relatively low rate of tender approvals until the last quarter of 1968, and private starts the shortage of mortgage funds during the winter. Abnormally bad weather also depressed both private and public sectors.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the restraints on domestic credit which have now been quantified in the Letter of Intent, could the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks will be the starts and completions for housing during the calendar year 1969?

Mr. Greenwood: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that they are quantified, but that is a point which no doubt he will be anxious to bring out in the debate tomorrow if he is fortunate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Clearly, our performance in the social field must to a very large extent reflect the strength of the country's economy. As I have said on previous occasions, it is too early in the year to give precise figures for the final out-turn for the year. That is still the position.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that a few days ago he gave me a list of housing authorities which have reduced the number of housing starts? Does he not think that to get the number of housing completions to where the country needs them he should look at the suggestion of starting some kind of national building agency to supplement the building by local authorities, both those which will not build and those which cannot build?

Mr. Greenwood: The housing figures must depend to a very large extent upon maintaining the momentum of local authority building. Some local authorities are maintaining figures; others, I am sorry to say, are dragging their feet and falling behind. But in the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made she is leaping a little too far ahead.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this disappointing decrease of 17 per cent. is a matter of policy and whether he would wish to see it made up during the year, or whether it is a matter of keeping down to this figure?

Mr. Greenwood: Certainly I wish to make up the shortfall during the year. I have said that I want to maintain and produce the highest figure of house building which the economy of the country allows. The shortfall so far reflects the two conditions to which I referred in my original answer.

Furnished Tenancies

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the Notting Hill Housing Survey, he will now extend the Rent Act, 1965 to give tenants of furnished dwellings in multi-occupied premises the full security of tenure provided by that Act.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The Rent Act, 1965, considerably improved the position of tenants of furnished dwellings. A further extension of the law on the lines suggested would have far-reaching consequences, not all of them necessarily favourable to tenants generally, but we are keeping the possibility in mind.

Mr. Allaun: Is there not clear evidence that many landlords are circumventing the Rent Act by putting in a few sticks of furniture, and when the tenant appeals for a fair rent, they evict him? Can my hon. Friend extend the Act to furnished houses which are not partly occupied by landlords?

Mr. MacColl: In reply to the first question, the courts have intervened categorically to stop the abuse of the "sticks of furniture" in cases brought to their notice; so I do not think it fair to say that nothing is done. In reply to the second point, this particular problem is confined to one or two areas where it is very bad indeed.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in discussions in Committee on the Rent Act I warned him that landlords would put in the bare minimum of furniture and so escape the controls of the 1965 Act? Does he appreciate that in the light of the Notting Hill survey this is an extremely serious problem in some parts of London? Will he look at it as a matter of urgency and introduce follow-up legislation?

Mr. MacColl: I think furnished lettings introduce two separate things which


are difficult to combine. They provide a base for a mobile population to enable them to move quickly from areas where they do not want to stay, but in areas of bad housing stress they provide homes for people in desperate need.

Mr. Whitaker: Regarding Notting Hill, was it not disturbing that it was left to independent bodies to bring to light an appalling situation which existed for years only a few miles from where we are sitting? Is it not a fact that the Kensington Council, one of the richest in the country, has done virtually nothing for low-income housing?

Mr. MacColl: On the first point, it is well known that in this area there was a serious housing problem. The report added enormously to the information and aroused the interest of people, but that there was an awful problem to be dealt with was well known.

Rents (Greater London Council)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he again refused the request of the Greater London Council that he should not interfere with their proposal to increase the rents of those of their tenants who could afford such increase.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will reconsider his decision to refuse the latest application from the Greater London Council for an increase in the rents of its council properties.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): When I met the council on 15th May, I explained that the proposals submitted on 6th March were not acceptable because rent increases could be avoided by charging to loan more of the capital expenditure met from revenue. The statutory position is that these proposals stand rejected and cannot be reconsidered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not this also a case in which the decision of an elected local authority was overthrown by a bureaucrat? Why did the Minister ask the G.L.C. to borrow to pay the salaries of some of its housing staffs at a time when interest rates were at a record level and when the Government were priding themselves on having reduced their borrowing commitment to nil?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. The reasons why the proposals were rejected were clearly set out in the orginal letter. They were reiterated at my meeting with the representatives of the council. The procedure that we recommended that the council might follow is one which is followed by all other housing authorities and is in no way unreasonable. It was merely asking the council to conduct its affairs in the same way as other councils.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not true that under the G.L.C.'s rent rebate scheme the full increase would have been paid only by tenants well able to afford it? Can the Minister suggest what I am now to tell people living in my constituency, often in far less affluent conditions than some of the council tenants, when they are faced with a rate increase to recoup at least £2 million this year and £4 million in a full year as a direct result of the Minister's arbitrary and indefensible action?

Mr. Robinson: I have already explained to the House on more than one occasion, as I explained to the representatives of the Greater London Council when they came to see me, that there is no need whatever for the rate to be increased. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads what I said and tells that to his constituents.

Regulated Rents

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the average percentage increase in rents fixed by the rent assessment committees in London, Birmingham, Southampton and each of the London boroughs respectively, and that for the rest of the country and for the whole country to the latest convenient date, compared with the previous controlled rents of these dwellings.

Mr. MacColl: As I told my hon. Friend in reply to his Questions on 19th June, this information is not available since the statistical material on tenancies for which rents have been registered under the rent regulation machinery does not indicate whether a tenancy was previously controlled.

Mr. Allaun: Since certain rent assessment committees are clearly influenced


by the high current rents caused by the housing shortage, will my hon. Friend draw their attention to the fact that they are not conforming with the letter or the intention of the Rent Act?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is aware of some of the problems which arise and keeps them in the front of his mind, but a general indication of that sort would not be justified by the evidence.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Minister also bear in mind that private landlords of controlled premises have had a very unfair deal over the past 20 years and have not been able to bring property up to date as they would have wished? Is he aware that in some foreign countries there are automatic rent increases by law right across the board for public and private landlords?

Mr. MacColl: It is true that on both the landlords' and the tenants' side there are hard cases. The great advantage of the 1965 Act was that it took a lot of the bitterness out of landlord and tenant relationships.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend have another look at the possibility of providing legal aid for tenants appearing before rent assessment committees?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is at present discussing the pilot surveyors' aid scheme which was introduced in London to see what lessons it has for the rest of the country.

Liverpool (New Houses)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what limitations he has placed on the construction of new homes by the Corporation of Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacColl: None, Sir, nor does my right hon. Friend contemplate doing so.

Mr. Ogden: Although the Labour Government have provided massive aid for the city of Liverpool in its housing programme and removed almost all restrictions on future building programmes, is my hon. Friend aware that

the city council has undertaken an extensive and lengthy review of housing which has resulted in a diminution in the number of houses to be built in the future, a great slowing-down of the programme in spite of the fact that we have 27,000 families on the waiting list in Liverpool—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—which is also too long?

Mr. MacColl: The last figure I have is that the council was contemplating approving tenders for about 17,000 dwellings over the next four years. If it achieves that, it is not an unreasonable target.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not true that Liverpool, despite high interest rates, has as good a housing record as almost any other corporation?

Mr. MacColl: Liverpool has had a very good record over the years, and I am anxious that it should maintain that record in the future.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rate of house building in Liverpool has definitely slowed down since the Conservative Party took over control, and that it is an absolute disgrace and scandal when one considers that the housing subsidies have gone up from £1,333,000 to over £2,400,000 between 1964 and 1968? Is it not time the Conservative Council in Liverpool was told to get on with the job and help our people to get some decent houses?

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to convey that to the Lverpool City Council as effectively as anyone can. We have maintained a 5 per cent. differential in the yardstick between Liverpool and the rest of the North-West, and therefore it is being given a great incentive to maintain its programme.

Mr. Graham Page: But has not Liverpool been faced with the increased interest rates? Has it not put in hand as many houses as the subsidy will allow? Is it not keeping up to the programme set by the Ministry?

Mr. MacColl: Instead of being anchored to a rigid subsidy which never changes whatever changes there are in cost, it has had a guaranteed 4 per cent. interest rate for new buildings.

Housing Associations (Evictions)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of of Housing and Local Government if he will seek powers to ensure that housing associations consult him before putting into effect decisons to evict their tenants.

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. Under the Rent Act 1965 a housing association may not obtain possession without a court order, and I have no reason to suppose that housing associations would in general act unreasonably in seeking to evict a tenant. If my hon. Friend has in mind a particular case about which he recently wrote to my right hon. Friend, I will, with his permission, willingly pursue inquiries on his behalf.

Mr. Brooks: But does not the specific case illustrate the danger of arguing from the general case? It is surely anomalous that tenants of housing associations who build on the basis of loans from the central Government should apparently be less protected than the ordinary tenant in private property?

Mr. MacColl: A housing association, if it is properly administered, is administered without regard to profit and so as to do an important housing job, which my right hon. Friend wants to see encouraged.

Registered Builders

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the proportion of builders now registered with the National House Builders' Registration Council; and what proportion of the total number of houses are built by them.

Mr. Greenwood: Nearly 13,000 house-builders are registered with the council. The proportion this represents of all housebuilding firms is not known, but it is very high. They are building about 95 per cent. of all private houses under construction.

Mr. Gardner: Can anything more be done to publicise this excellent N.H.B.R.C. scheme? Many potential purchasers have never heard of it.

Mr. Greenwood: The council is conducting a publicity campaign, with, I believe, great effect, and I take the

opportunity to pay tribute to what it is doing and advise everyone who is contemplating buying a house not to do so without buying one built by a builder registered with the council.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents who bought such a house has had two and a half years of heavy expense in trying to get justice for himself? While the matter has at last been settled, it still established the fact that the standards set out have not been maintained.

Mr. Greenwood: That is an exceptional case and all of us must have come across the occasional such case. But the council itself dealt with it as expeditiously as was consistent with doing justice to the individual builder concerned, and I believe that it is performing a most useful service extremely efficiently and effectively.

Rent Tribunals

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to provide that where a tenant persistently refuses to attend a hearing of a rent tribunal the determination of the rent shall be decided in his absence.

Mr. MacColl: This does not appear necessary. The Rent Act, 1968, requires that, when both landlord and tenant have been given an opportunity of being heard or—if they prefer—of submitting representations in writing, the rent tribunal should reach a decision on the reference. Thus, neither landlord nor tenant can frustrate in this way the reaching of a decision.

Mr. Berry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a constituent who has been unable to have a rent determined because of the absence of a tenant? Is it right that his application should have been described as frivolous just because there is no tenant available to give evidence before the tribunal?

Mr. MacColl: The tribunals are independent and not answerable to my right hon. Friend. Whatever the tribunal referred to thought it wise to say is a matter for it and for the courts and not for us.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a real case not against tenants but against landlords who are dilatory in their response to rent tribunals? Will he undertake to consider introducing legislation to make rent reductions retrospective to the date of the application so that we can deal with dilatory landlords?

Mr. MacColl: That is something which can be looked at in any review of landlord and tenant legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Greater London Initial Development Plan (Brentford)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has reached a decision on the proposed amendments to the Greater London initial development plan relating to Brentford.

Mr. K. Robinson: Not yet, but I assure my hon. Friend that everything is being done to reach a decision quickly.

Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great potential of the Brent-for riverside area not only for the people of Brentford but for the surrounding area? In view of the length of time that talk about redeveloping Brentford has been going on, will he do everything possible to enable it to go ahead as quickly as possible?

Mr. Robinson: I assure my hon. Friend that I recognise the desirability of reaching an early decision. However, the proposals have given rise to some very tricky issues which need careful consideration.

New Local Authority Duties (Expenditure)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what new

NEW POWERS AND DUTIES GIVEN TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LEGISLATION PASSED IN THE PARLIAMENTARY SESSION 1967–68


Act
New powers and duties
Local authorities affected
Estimated expenditure in 1969–70


Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.
Duty to pay for disturbance on compulsory acquisition of agricultural holding.
Any authority purchasing compulsorily an agricultural holding.
No estimate is possible, as it is not known how many authorities will make such purchases.

duties were placed on local authorities by legislation passed in the Parliamentary Session 1967–68; and if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the estimated expenditure by local authorities in the year 1969–70 under each of these headings.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): The information derives from 13 Acts, and, as it is lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply to both parts of the Question.

Mr. Lubbock: That will make interesting reading. Would the hon. Gentleman at least give me the grand total of expenditure by local authorities in the current financial year as a result of this legislation?

Mr. Skeffington: That must be a somewhat detailed and elaborate calculation but, as the hon. Gentleman has specifically asked for the figure, I will get it for him, although I cannot give it to him now.

Mr. Marks: Along with that information, will my hon. Friend publish the details of the grant increases made in the form of support grants to local authorities in the same year?

Mr. Skeffington: I will see that that information is conveyed at the same time. One of the great benefits which this Administration have been able to afford to local authorities is the maintenance of the amount of the central contribution for all this additional expenditure.

Mr. Graham Page: Will there be an interim Order to meet this contribution from the Exchequer towards this expenditure, or will it be left to the ratepayers?

Mr. Skeffington: If the Government consider the former to be desirable, it will be done.

Following is the information:

Act
New powers and duties
Local authorities affected
Estimated expenditure in 1969–70


Caravan Sites Act 1968.
Duty to provide residential caravan sites for gipsies and control unlawful camping etc.
County councils, county borough and London borough councils.
—


(Part II of the Act is not yet in operation.)


Civil Aviation Act 1968.
Various new powers. The main provisions are: power in relation to control of road traffic at designated local authority aerodromes; power to make bye-laws for local authority aerodromes; power to provide facilities for civil aviation at aerodromes provided by others; power for rural district councils to provide aerodromes; duty to provide (at aerodromes designated by the Board of Trade for the purpose) adequate facilities for consultation; power to detain, and subject to the leave of the court, to sell aircraft for non-payment of airport charges (this power does not come into force until the Board of Trade make an Order).
All main authorities* are given the powers if they wish to use them.
Not possible to estimate, as it is not known what use authorities will make of these permissive powers.


Clean Air Act 1968
Power to control the heights of furnace chimneys under a self-contained and separate code of control and to prosecute for the acquisition or sale of smoke-producing coal for delivery to premises in a smoke control area. Other matters not yet brought into operation include power to prosecute for the emission of dark smoke, other than from a chimney from industrial or trade premises: and the duty to require the fitting of grit and dust arrestment plant in respect of a wider range of furnaces than those covered by the Clean Air Act 1956 and to grant exemptions.
All main authorities* except county councils.
No significant expenditure


Countryside Act 1968.
Extensive, some being discretionary. They include creation of country parks picnic and camping places.
County and district councils.
Based on estimates of Exchequer grant for 1969–70, about £100,000.


Education Act 1968
Various amendments to the duties of local education authorities in the approval of changes in the character and size of existing schools and the establishment of new schools.
Local education authorities.
Negligible.


Education (No. 2) Act 1968.
Duty to make instruments and articles of government in respect of colleges of education etc. and special schools managed by them.
Local education authorities.
Negligible.


Gaming Act 1968
Certain consequential duties in relation to new licensing system for gaming and bingo clubs.
County borough and London borough councils, county district councils, county councils (where fire authority).
No estimate is possible. Expenditure is dependent in part on number of applications received.

Caravan Sites Act, 1968 (Part II)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will estimate the additional cost to be incurred by local authorities in the year 1969–70 resulting from the laying of an Order on 1st June implementing Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and what proportion of total spending in the year this figure represents.

Mr. Greenwood: I can make no precise estimate. I am anxious to make

progress, but I do not think it would be wise to make an Order bringing this Part of the Act into force until I am satisfied that to do so will not impose an undue burden on local authorities at a time when they are subject to stringent economies in staff and finance.

Mr. Lubbock: How can the Minister possibly give me such an answer when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said a moment ago that under 13 Acts passed in the 1967–68 Session of Parliament additional duties costing millions of £s have been laid on local authorities? What consideration has the right hon. Gentleman


given to the figures which I have submitted to his Department, to Lord Kennet, showing the vast amounts of unproductive expenditure now being incurred by local authorities throughout England and Wales?

Mr. Greenwood: In replying to an earlier supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary emphasised the difficulty of providing the figures for which he asked. I have been examining the figures of expenditure which the hon. Gentleman has supplied to my noble Friend but, frankly, I do not think that they provide a very reliable guide on which comparisons can be made.

Mr. Macdonald: When my right hon. Friend says that to implement this part of the Act would impose a burden on local authorities, will he bear in mind that his failure to bring in this part of the Act is imposing a burden on those local authorities which must take action to provide sites?

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate that that is one of the factors which operate at the present time. However, I remind hon. Members of what I have said in the past, which is that when local authorities wish to apply for loan sanction in this way we treat applications very sympathetically indeed.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Flooding

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further steps his Department is taking to alleviate the problems of flooding.

Mr. Greenwood: In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I shall shortly issue a new circular giving advice to local authorities about the various problems that they are likely to have to deal with when there are floods, the kind of help that they can give to the public and the kind of help Government Departments can give.

Mr. Marten: Is the Minister satisfied that when local planning authorities

approve planning applications they bring into balance the question of the enormous amount of building with concrete and the fact that this increases the dangers of flooding? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring out this point in the memorandum which he is to send round?

Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The circular will include advice to local authorities on this point. I am considering whether additional advice is necessary in consultation with local authorities, drainage boards and river authorities.

Mr. Leadbitter: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for issuing this circular, which is most necessary, will he bear in mind that many local authorities are not very helpful in providing flood relief funds and assistance when damage is suffered and that, although local authorities have insured, insurance companies will not pay on claims made to them for flooding because local authorities will not accept liability?

Mr. Greenwood: I shall be glad to look into evidence which my hon. Friend can give in support of the last point he made. Certainly my experience is that local authorities in general are exceedingly sympathetic and helpful when there are flooding disasters, but if my hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary I shall gladly look into it.

Green Belt Land

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will undertake a survey of the amount of originally-scheduled Green Belt land which has been converted for housing or industrial purposes in the past five years.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. The work involved would be very considerable, and difficult to justify.

Mr. Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this information is absolutely essential if we are not finally to have a great jungle between here and Birmingham and Manchester? In view of the provisions of the Redcliffe-Maude Report, does he not think it important that this information should be readily forthcoming?

Mr. Robinson: The Department has information about the number but not the acreage of planning permissions given


by local planning authorities in approved green belts, and similar information about planning appeals in approved green belts, but it is the job of the planning authorities strictly to control development in green belts. I agree that they should have the information, but it is not so important that it should be held centrally.

Coastline (Countryside Commission's Report)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the report of the Countryside Commission concerning the policy for the coastline of England and Wales will be issued.

Mr. Skeffington: The Countryside Commission is actively working on this report, but its publication cannot be expected for some months.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the conservation of the coastline on amenity, and indeed economic, grounds should have very high priority by the Minister? Will he try to get a sense of urgency into this study?

Mr. Skeffington: I assure my hon. Friend that the threat to the coastline is very fully appreciated by the Department and by the Countryside Commission. There were nine reports which went into considerable detail. I hope that as a result of the deliberations 800 or 900 miles of coastline will be fully preserved.

Derelict Land

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress is being made in dealing with derelict land; and if he will give figures.

Mr. K. Robinson: Local authorities are steadily building up their programmes of grant-aided schemes, and with the higher grants that will be available in the intermediate areas a faster rate of clearance should be achieved. I will, with permission, circulate total figures for the last two years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hooley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that there is some progress at local authority level, but is he absolutely satisfied that all local authorities with serious problems of this kind are dealing with the matter as a high priority, because it should have very

high priority in circumstances of economic development in certain key areas of the country?

Mr. Robinson: I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the progress so far. That is why we are drawing up a new national programme and increasing the grant. The grant last year was nearly 80 per cent. up on the year before.

Following is the information:
During 1968–69 87 schemes for 1,350 acres at a gross cost of £1,800,000 were given final approval allowing work to start, compared with 58 schemes for 1,170 acres at a gross cost of £1,600,000 in 1967–68. £436,000 was paid in grant in 1968–69, compared with £245,000 in 1967–68.

Sports Facilities

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many proposals by categories for loan sanction for the provision of sports facilities he has approved in the last 12 months.

Mr. Skeffington: In the year ending 31st March, 1969, my right hon. Friend approved one multi-purpose sports complex, 12 swimming pools, two sports halls, five dual provision schemes for use by schools and the general public, and 153 minor schemes involving the lay-out of playing fields, provision of sports pavilions, changing accommodation, etc.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that very satisfactory answer. Will he give special consideration to granting loan sanction to local authorities which wish to purchase ex-Army drill halls for conversion into indoor sports centres or similar things?

Mr. Skeffington: This is a consideration that we have very much in mind.

Planning Appeals

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many planning appeals have been transferred to inspectors for decision under the provisions of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968.

Mr. Skeffington: Up to 16th June, 878 planning appeals had been transferred to inspectors for decision.

Mr. Macdonald: Does not every one of these transfers mean that a decision by


democratically elected local councillors is subject to overthrow by a bureaucrat? Is not this a melancholy feature of an otherwise excellent Act? Can the Minister ensure that the only appeals so transferred are those where the original decision was delegated by councillors to their officers, which they are empowered by the Act to do, though I hope that they do not delegate any decisions?

Mr. Skeffington: During all the stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill we had lengthy discussions about this procedure. I thought that this system had been generally welcomed as providing both speed and an independent arbitrator in a case where a citizen was displeased. It is early to judge yet, but so far we have no reason to believe that this scheme is either undemocratic or in any way unfair. The Minister always has the right to recall any appeals if he believes that there is some outstanding issue which should be determined by a higher authority.

Offices

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of future demands for new offices, and of surplus or deficiency in the supply already planned.

Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir. Any estimate on a national scale would largely depend on factors which are difficult to predict.

Mr. Atkins: Is there not a great need for such an estimate in view of the excess supply of office blocks in so many towns—Birmingham, Liverpool, and even Plymouth; and The Guardian today has a note about Newcastle-upon-Tyne? In view of the waste of national resources, should not such an estimate be made and any surplus be devoted to the housing programme?

Mr. Robinson: This is primarily a matter for local planning authorities. The Government's policy is to seek a wider distribution of office employment throughout the country. If my hon. Friend has a particular place in mind where he thinks there is an excess of office accommodation, perhaps he will let me know.

Retail Business Premises

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of future demands for new retail business premises, and of surplus or deficiency in the supply already planned.

Mr. K. Robinson: No estimate has been made for planning purposes of future demands on a national basis, but local planning authorities have been given guidance on how to estimate retail floor space requirements to suit particular local circumstances. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Atkins: Is there not an even greater need in this instance for an estimate? In view of the greater concentration of shopping in supermarkets and mail order firms, taken with the greater mobility of the customer, is there not a danger that we may become a nation of keepers of empty shops?

Mr. Robinson: Here again, I do not think that there is any point in trying to make a national estimate in planning terms. It would have to be broken down into local units. I do not think that it necessarily follows that the fact that there are shops unlet is the result of over-provision. It can be caused by a number of factors—economic circumstances, and the like.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main architectural features of town centres nowadays is empty shopping centres? If the new developments are not empty, they often cripple existing shopping centres. As local authorities do not seem to be applying the criteria issued by my right hon. Friend to local authorities in his valuable booklet on methods of estimating retail floor space requirements, will he issue a further circular emphasising that these are strict criteria to be observed in all cases?

Mr. Robinson: The circular stressed that in our view over-estimating of shopping space is the danger most to be avoided. We shall have to see the effect that the circular has before considering whether further guidance is needed.

Tree Planting

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek powers to stimulate tree planting in urban areas, especially where redevelopment is taking place.

Mr. Skeffington: Local councils have extensive powers and, I am glad to say, are using them increasingly for the purposes mentioned. Section 12 of the Civil Amenities Act requires them in appropriate cases to make the grant of planning permission conditional on the planting or preservation of tree cover.

Mr. Shaw: That is good as far as it goes. Will not my hon. Friend regard this as being urgent in order to prevent the further spread of deserts of bricks and mortar? Is there not a need for legislation, and even for financial incentives for those authorities that co-operate?

Mr. Skeffington: There will be financial incentives under the Housing Bill when enacted in regard to improving environmental conditions in improvement areas. Elsewhere, the number of new tree preservation orders, which is increasing at a very rapid rate, leads us to believe that this aspect is being satisfactorily catered for. We are always anxious to do better.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In encouraging local authorities to plant more trees, will the Minister ensure that they take good advice on the species selected and, if necessary, go to the Forestry Commission, which is the expert in this field and gives good advice?

Mr. Skeffington: We are in continual touch with the Forestry Commission and other agencies on this matter. Authorities have found our publication "Trees in Towns" very useful. This year we hope to publish a further booklet in relation to tree planting in both town and country.

Rates

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the average sum paid in rates by domestic ratepayers in England and Wales.

Mr. Skeffington: The average amount per dwelling paid in rates in 1968–69 by domestic ratepayers in England and

Wales is estimated to have been £41 19s. This takes into account domestic rate relief, which amounted to an average of £2 19s. 2d.

Mr. Allason: As the comparable figure in 1964–65 was £32, are the Government really satisfied that they can go on milking the domestic ratepayer as they are doing? Would not the Minister think quickly, now that he has read the Royal Commission Report, about a refinancing of local government?

Mr. Skeffington: This is a matter that is very much in the Government's mind, particularly as a result of the Royal Commission's Report. But my right hon. Friend has said that the massive contribution which has been made by central Government Departments has meant that until last year many authorities actually reduced their rates instead of increasing them.

West Cheshire Green Belt

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has to give statutory protection to the West Cheshire Green Belt, in the light of the anticipated housing need in Wirral forecast by the Merseyside Transportation and Land Use Study.

Mr. K. Robinson: The study to which my hon. Friend refers has only just been completed and will have to be considered by all the Government Departments and local authorities concerned. I intend to await the result of this before considering further action.

Mr. Brooks: In view of the enormous pressures now clearly forecast for an already congested peninsula, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgent to define just what areas should be safeguarded as open places in the future? Does he agree that it is particularly urgent now to establish the future likelihood of a Dee crossing, which might make available parkland and recreational areas in large parts of North-East Wales for Merseyside?

Mr. Robinson: I accept that it is an important study, but it was presented only yesterday to the steering committee. I can assure my hon. Friend that green belts are safeguarded by day-to-day planning control.

Captain W. Elliot: Is the Minister aware that green belts all over the country, and particularly the London Green Belt, are threatened not only by the building of houses but by runways and motorways? Will he look at the whole question of green belts all over the country?

Mr. Robinson: The whole question of green belts is under continuous review, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's fears are exaggerated.

Land Commission (Levy)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the estimated additional amount of levy under the Land Commission Act to be remitted on the basis that the concessions announced in the Budget are applied to acts or events prior to 5th April 1969; and how much levy already collected in respect of such acts or events would have to be repaid.

Mr. K. Robinson: If all the concessions had been made fully retrospective, about £2m. and £1·5m. respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not that have been a very small forgoing of revenue in order to prevent very real feelings of injustice on the part of people who pay purely because of the accident of a particular date, liabilities which people who came along a little later or a bit earlier were excused?

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that £3½ million is by any means a trivial sum. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the general principles have been debated widely and at length in the House.

Clean Air Act (Diesel Fumes)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek to amend the Clean Air Act 1956 to cover the emission of diesel fumes.

Mr. Greenwood: Emissions from vehicle exhausts are already dealt with under the Road Traffic Acts, under which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has appropriate powers and duties, and I do not think that any amendment of the Clean Air Act in this respect is appropriate.

Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that diesel fumes, particularly from heavy vehicles, represent a growing hazard to life? Is he aware in particular that residents living near Bromley bus garage are being subjected to intolerable nuisance from the emission of these fumes and have been told that they have no redress in law against the negligence and indifference of London Transport in this matter? Can he do nothing to help?

Mr. Greenwood: I will look into that case, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the information, and pass it to my right hon. Friend who would more appropriately deal with it. The Clean Air Council discussed this with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in February and made no recommendation about legislation following that discussion.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has had this problem before it for eight years and has not brought forward any constructive recommendation for its solution? Is he further aware that the very great increase in the number of motor vehicles on our roads and the emission from exhausts are negativing practically the whole benefit derived from the original Clean Air Act?

Mr. Greenwood: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted one of the difficulties in this matter, and that is the absence of absolutely conclusive evidence.

Mr. Ellis: How many prosecutions have there been under the Act? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that much needs to be done in the enforcement of the Act? Will he confer with the Home Secretary with a view to doing this?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that is probably a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but I will do my best to see that my hon. Friend gets the information he asks for.

Marble (Imports)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the fact that imports of foreign marble into this country amount to approximately £2 million per annum, and the need to reduce


imports, he will send a circular to local authorities urging that its use for building purposes should be discouraged.

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. I do not know of imported marble being used in local authority housing or other buildings to any significant extent. Local authorities are aware of the need to use indigenous materials where these are satisfactory in price and quality.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, while the bill for foreign marble is not very large compared with the huge adverse balance of payments, there are a number of British products which can be substituted for things like marble and, therefore, should be used wherever possible?

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that local authorities would always want to look at a British product if it were cheaper and of good quality.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (EXTENSION OF POWERS)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now take steps to extend the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers to decisions of local authorities, in view of the official proposal to do so in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Now that the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England is available the Government are studying the position in the light of its findings.

Mr. Whitaker: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a terrible thing to say of anyone, especially of a Labour Government, that they had been overtaken on the left by the Northern Ireland Government? In view of the fact that so many of the cases sent to the Parliamentary Commissioner are outside his remit, will my right hon. Friend extend his responsibilities not only to local authorities but to the nationalised industries, the police and the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: When I had this matter put to me before, I said that English local government is different from Northern Ireland local government. We

are studying the subject urgently, and I hope to make a statement in the very near future. The progress we are making on this question in relation to local authorities is encouraging.

Captain Orr: I take it that the Prime Minister means that he will ensure that any democratic practices in England, Scotland and Wales will not be allowed to fall below the standards of the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: We pressed the Ombudsman proposal on the Northern Ireland Government, and I am glad of their response. We have been studying for some time—indeed, we began before the discussion with Northern Ireland—the question of whether there should be an Ombudsman for local government, and, as I have said, I hope to be able to make a statement before too long.

Mr. Heath: Have the Government reached any conclusion about special inspection of the National Health Service, promised by the Secretary of State for Social Services?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I hope to make a statement before the Summer Recess on this matter, which is being looked at in connection with other matters concerned with the National Health Service. As my right hon. Friend indicated, it would probably be right, instead of giving responsibility to the Parliamentary Commissioner, to have a specialist Ombudsman for the National Health Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister what steps he now intends to take to change the Official Secrets Act in view of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee and those sent to him by Professor Hugh Thomas.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 31–35 of the White Paper on Information and the Public Interest, published on 20th June.

Mr. Whitaker: What action will follow from the White Paper? Is my right hon Friend satisfied that it safeguards the interests of departmental civil servants? Is he also satisfied that it represents the interests of the public as much as possible


in taking part in participatory democracy where matters involving security or confidential information are not involved?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's approach to the question, and this is why we have opened up a wide range of Government activities through the creation of specialist Select Committees. My hon. Friend will no doubt have studied what we said about the Official Secrets Acts in paragraph 34 of the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the effect of flooding on agricultural land, he will transfer the overall responsibility for dealing with the problems to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Prime Minister: Responsibility for land drainage and for the flood protection activities of river and other drainage authorities already rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Although these matters are kept under continuous review, I do not think that it would be appropriate to give to my right hon. Friend responsibility for all the functions which could be relevant to flooding.

Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, in view of the serious flood damage to agriculture last year, and as we appear to be in a cycle of wet summers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it worth having some sort of review of flooding problems and control and of the conservation of water?

The Prime Minister: In the light of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I have reviewed the machinery. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in certain recent floods the biggest problems were not in rural but in urban areas. When the matter was raised in the House not long ago, I think it was the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who said that because flooding has become an urban rather than a rural problem he thought that the Ministry of Agriculture's responsibilities should be decreased rather than increased. I think that the present division of functions

is right, because it is essential that local authorities should be able to move quickly. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has overall charge except for the cases I have referred to.

Mr. Ellis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the main case is for one Minister to have overall responsibility, whoever he may be? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ministries of Agriculture, Housing, Education and Science and the Home Office have an interest, along with the Meteorological Office under the Ministry of Defence? In these circumstances, rather than naming an individual Minister, would it not be better for my right hon. Friend to appoint one Minister with overall responsibility?

The Prime Minister: The Ministerial Committee on Emergencies is a longstanding arrangement under successive Governments and takes charge completely. My right hon. Friend and I answered Questions in the House about the problem of communicating more urgently than heretofore, both to river authorities and to local authorities, any views that the Meteorological Office may have on impending flood problems.

Mr. Godber: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious results not only from flooding but from the waterlogging of vast areas of agricultural land this spring? Could the Government not give some practical aid to help farmers overcome this problem?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to a problem that has occurred not only this spring but over very many years and under very many Governments. This is why I do not propose to remove from the Minister of Agriculture, as some have suggested, the power he has in this matter. The question of waterlogging, as opposed to the kind of disastrous floods that we had in February, is a separate problem. I agree that it is important.

Sir D. Renton: Arising out of the Prime Minister's answer to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), may I ask whether he is aware that urban development, by creating large, fresh, hard surfaces, often increases agricultural flooding? Is it not therefore essential that there should be


co-ordination of drainage, both for urban and agricultural land?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Baronet's Question is highly relevant here. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is giving advice to local planning authorities on that very point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to South-East Asia.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit South-East Asia in the immediate future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is at present visiting certain countries in the region on his way back from the Five Power Conference on Defence Matters in Canberra.

Mr. Goodhew: Does the Prime Minister not think it necessary to go out there and clarify the ambiguous impression which has been given by his right hon. Friend and Lord Shepherd? The Secretary of State for Defence has told a Press conference at S.E.A.T.O. headquarters that no British forces will be available for S.E.A.T.O. contingency plans after 1971, whereas the noble Lord, only a month ago, told S.E.A.T.O.—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Goodhew: —that Britain would maintain the capacity to send a significant force to the Far East after our withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore. Who is correct?

The Prime Minister: As with the situation a little further to the west, in the Persian Gulf, the confusion exists only in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of Press conferences, has the Prime Minister noticed that at various venues, from Sydney Airport to Singapore, the Leader of the Opposition has been scattering around some extremely expensive promises—right round South-East Asia? As the Leader of a party which says it will reduce taxation, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to do some cost calculations?

The Prime Minister: The fact that these
promises are totally incompatible with the promises of hon. and right hon.
Gentlemen opposite to reduce expenditure and taxation is not relevant, because they will not be there to carry them out.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement of the Secretary of State to the Press in Canberra that he is now changing the direction of Government policy and that forces of all three arms are in future to be in South-East Asia, Malaysia and Singapore exercising there almost continuously over the years to come, is a very welcome change of policy by the Government? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that he is now getting the worst of all worlds? He has convinced South-East Asia that he is abandoning them and at the same time his Secretary of State is to keep forces there almost continuously but the forces will have no stockpile of arms and take no part in the command structure.

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said in his statement in Canberra is entirely in accordance with what he said in the defence debate following our announcement. There is all the difference in the world between having a training responsibility and an automatic commitment to be in the area for the purpose of taking part in military operations. When the right hon. Gentleman takes a little time off to study the financial implications of maintaining a stockpile of arms and all the military units necessary to protect that stockpile and the arms that will be required, he will find that the cost estimates my right hon. Friend made of his own proposals are intolerable.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANCASHIRE (PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL RESIDENCE)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to acquire a Prime Minister's official residence in the County Palatine of Lancaster.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion but I have no plans for increasing the number of official residences.

Mr. Ogden: Whilst that reply was not entirely unexpected, would my right hon. Friend agree that it was a little conservative? Why should the Prime Minister's guests always be confined to the Home Counties when we have access to the regions of the country in just as short a time as they can get to Chequers? We have hospitality there, and it is a vital region, with road, rail and airport facilities and all the other things necessary. Would he look at this again?

The Prime Minister: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend and neighbour says about the speed of access now between London and Merseyside, not only, I may say, to Knowsley, which is in my constituency. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I have a permanent booking at the Golden Eagle Hotel, Kirkby.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to meet the new President of France.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to meeting President Pompidou, but as he has only just assumed office it is too early to say when this might be.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of the composition of the new French Government, encouraging for all forms of European co-operation, will the right hon. Gentleman hasten slowly in seeking a meeting?

The Prime Minister: The question of a meeting is a matter for further consideration. All hon. Members will have formed their own views about what prospects are in the light of the new Government in France. It would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to start forcing the pace in this matter. This is a matter for the Six, which will, I understand, be meeting shortly. Her Majesty's Government's position on this has been made known over a period of years. We shall certainly take any opportunity that opens up to us. If that is what "hasten slowly" means, I accept the hon. Gentleman's phrase.

Mr. John Mendelson: While accepting that the Prime Minister is quite right

to set his own pace in relation to the French Government, would not the most useful work he could do now, together with the French Government, be to make a major advance in trying to get a European security conference going to get agreement between East and West on multiple arms reductions and the setting up of a European security system?

The Prime Minister: That is a separate question. Obviously it is one that I would discuss with the President of France if and when a meeting is arranged. My hon. Friend will be aware of the initiatives taken by N.A.T.O. in this respect at its meeting in Iceland last summer. Then, to put it at its lowest, hopes were somewhat deferred by events in Czechoslovakia. N.A.T.O. has made clear that we are prepared to discuss matters of security and matters of détente, on an individual basis, with East European countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (MINISTERIAL VISITS)

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further Ministerial visits to Eastern European countries in the near future.

The Prime Minister: During 1969 my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Technology have visited the Soviet Union. In addition, my noble friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Board of Trade have visited Poland and Hungary respectively. Further Ministerial visits are under consideration.

Mr. Boston: While accepting that that is welcome news, and that the visits of the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Technology confirmed that there is considerable scope for developing trade with Eastern European countries, as well as bringing back some encouraging news about the prospects for improving the balance of trade as between Britain and the Soviet Union in particular, would my right hon. Friend agree that further visits of this kind could help to develop the scope for further trade with these countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Exports to the Soviet Union have risen far beyond most people's expectations in the last three or four years. My right hon. Friend's visit gave real meaning to the agreement which Mr. Kosygin and I signed about linking Anglo-Soviet trade with the five-year plan now in the course of preparation in the Soviet Union. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are not only visits from this country to Eastern Europe, and he will also attach importance to the recent and forthcoming visits by East European leaders to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of the Departments, including Armed Service Departments, whose interests are affected by the consequences of flood emergencies, and whose activities are at present co-ordinated by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

The Prime Minister: The Departments involved will vary but in the case of the serious flooding in East and South-East England last autumn, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to co-ordinate the relief work, the Departments mainly concerned in addition to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government itself, were the Ministries of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Defence, Transport, Power, the then Ministry of Health, the Home Office, and the General Post Office.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the recent flood emergencies United States forces in this country gave valuable help to local authorities without charge and that British forces abroad equally help local populations without charge? Yet during these floods the Royal Air Force sent local authorities a very large bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter and also consider setting up a summer emergency committee to co-ordinate these matters?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman and the reasons for it. With regard to the question of emergencies, I answered a Question earlier by the hon.

Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that there has been a Ministerial Committee on Emergencies for many years to deal with all these questions.
Flooding in this country is not confined to the summer, whatever impression we may all have. It occurs in winter as well. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is ready to pay tribute to the tremendous work of the Winter Emergency Committee in ensuring that last year, unlike the position which we inherited from which we suffered in 1965 and 1966, there was a 25 per cent. margin of capacity in electricity over the peak of a very difficult winter.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Rhodesia.
In answering Questions on Rhodesia yesterday, I commented on the results of the referendum held on 20th June. I said that the constitutional proposals for which the Rhodesian electorate had voted could never form the basis of an honourable settlement with this country and that there could be no prospect of such a settlement until there had been a real change of attitude on the part of the Rhodesian Europeans.
One important aspect of the referendum result is its implications for the position of the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs. Everyone in this country has felt the highest admiration for the courage and dignity with which he and Lady Gibbs have steadfastly upheld the cause of legality in Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The messages which he has received from Her Majesty the Queen on a number of occasions since the illegal declaration of independence have testified to Her Majesty's deep appreciation of his conduct over a long and difficult period. Her Majesty's Government and all Members of the House share in that appreciation and have often expressed their own feelings of respect. It is right that we should again express that admiration and respect today.
On 11th June, before the referendum, the Governor issued a public statement


about his own position. In that statement he said that, if enough of the electorate voted for the Rhodesian Front proposals for them to be put into effect, then, in all probability, it would be impossible for him to continue to be Governor of Rhodesia, since the door to further negotiation would have been closed by the Rhodesian electorate, who would have demonstrated their wish to break all ties with Her Majesty the Queen and with Britain.
In the light of the results of the referendum, I have been in consultation with the Governor, who has not changed his view. I have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances it would not be justifiable to ask the Governor to remain any longer at his post. I have, therefore, advised the Queen that he should be permitted to resign. Her Majesty has graciously signified her agreement and also the hope that, before long, Sir Humphrey and Lady Gibbs will be able to come to this country so that they can take leave of Her Majesty in person. I have notified the Governor accordingly.
In view of this decision, and of the referendum results, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would serve no useful purpose to maintain the United Kingdom Residual Mission in Salisbury and that Rhodesia House in London should be closed. The necessary instructions have been sent to the Residual Mission and the Head of Rhodesia House was informed this morning. We have proposed a period of three weeks for closure on either side.
We shall, of course, stand ready to resume links whenever there are people in Rhodesia who share our principles and with whom we can talk. As I told the House yesterday, it will remain our policy to work for an honourable settlement when that day comes.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I immediately express the admiration and gratitude of this side of the House for the way in which the Governor has discharged his duties? He was placed in an almost untenable position and he has displayed patience, dignity and loyalty which are exemplary and indeed inexhaustible. The House would like, as the Foreign Secretary has done, to include Lady Gibbs and to wish them both every happiness, whatever the future may

hold. It is with deep regret that he has to leave his office. One must conclude that, in the circumstances of the referendum, it was inevitable.
But why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to remove the Residual Mission? Surely this is in contradiction to what he said yesterday, that
It will remain our policy to work for such a settlement when there are people in power in Rhodesia who share our principles".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 994.]
The right hon. Gentleman is removing the last point of contact with such people in Rhodesia. Will he resist the resolutions which are now floating round and being put forward in the United Nations which order Britain to sever all communications with Rhodesia? Will he instruct Lord Caradon to exercise the veto on such resolutions if necessary?

Mr. Stewart: In the light of the referendum results and of the statements by Mr. Smith during the referendum campaign, we must realise that it is quite unrealistic to imagine that we could reach any settlement with him or with his supporters. Therefore, it would not be right either for Rhodesia House to remain open here or for our Residual Mission to remain there. If at any future time there are people in Rhodesia who have power and who could agree with the principles which the whole House has established on this matter, they would have no difficulty in making their wishes known. However, I think that it must be clear now that there must be a severance of ties with the illegal régime.
As to what is sometimes called the communications sanction, I think that anyone who has studied this matter knows that there are arguments both ways. We are making a fresh study of what would be involved in this in the circumstances that now prevail.

Mr. Heath: May I press the Foreign Secretary to reconsider this question? He is breaking off any point of contact with Britain by anybody who is opposed to the present Administration in Rhodesia. He is removing any point of contact. May I suggest to him that this is in clear contravention of what he does in any other case in the world? Even when we disagree with a régime, and we have broken diplomatic relations


with a régime, we still maintain a point of contact through another diplomatic mission.
This will be the only case which I can recall from my experience of the Foreign Office in which we have deliberately refused to have any point of contact whatever. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider this decision, because I believe that it is unwise, however much emotional satisfaction it may give to backbench Members behind him?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that this is a unique case. We are not dealing with a foreign country; we are dealing with a rebellion. I think that, in view of the decision which the Governor felt it right to take—that it was not possible for him to remain at his post because the Rhodesian electorate, such as it is, had deliberately decided to sever their ties with Her Majesty and this country—it would be quite wrong for us to condone that.
As to the practicalities, if at any time there were any possibility of our being able to resume discussion with people in Rhodesia who accept our principles, and who were in a position to put them into effect in Rhodesia, if those circumstances were fulfilled there would not be the smallest difficulty in resuming contact.

Mr. George Brown: Does it follow from this decision that we no longer have a special responsibility, as distinct from our share of responsibility as a member of the United Nations, for the situation in Rhodesia? Is it, therefore, the intention of the Foreign Secretary to make it clear to the United Nations, many of whose members have voted for sanctions while leaving us to carry them out, that we accept from here on the same responsibility but no more responsibility than other members of the United Nations?

Mr. Stewart: We must remember that, despite what has happened, and despite the decision which I have announced, the legal sovereignty over Rhodesia is still vested in Her Majesty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite contest that.
On the wider question which my right hon. Friend has raised, it has always been my view that this is a responsibility that the rest of mankind ought to share with us through the United Nations. That

is the way in which we have always approached it at the United Nations and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Winnick: Are we now to understand that there will be no negotiations with the illegal régime as long as the Rhodesian Front holds power? Will my right hon. Friend make a contrast between the behaviour of Sir Humphrey Gibbs during the last few years and that of the Rhodesian lobby in this House, who always put loyalty to the illegal régime first?

Mr. Stewart: As I have made clear, it would be totally unrealistic to suppose that there could be any useful discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian Front. There is here a fundamental cleavage of principle, and it would not be right for us to condone that by maintaining our Mission in Salisbury.
In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that we all know the facts. We know what certain persons in this country have said about this matter, and we can all draw our own conclusions and make our comparison between the behaviour of those persons and the dignified attitude of Sir Humphrey.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the contradiction in his own statement? He has said that he is eager to reopen talks if the opportunity arises, but he has ended the contact which would make that possible. Does not he see that only those who are emotionally involved can support his action and that people outside look at it as petulant or panic-stricken?

Mr. Stewart: That is not so. I have already explained three times that there will not be the smallest difficulty for anyone in Rhodesia who accepts the principles on which alone a settlement could be made getting in touch with Her Majesty's Government. We have throughout—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a serious issue. Noise does not help.

Mr. Stewart: We have throughout this period been in contact with a great many people in Rhodesia holding a wide range of views. That is still possible. What would be wrong would be to maintain a Residual Mission in Salisbury which


would, in effect, be countenancing the decisions reached by the Rhodesian Front against the whole attitude of the Governor as instanced by his judgment in this matter.

Mr. Faulds: Now that Smith and his supporters have made inevitable the war of liberation solution to the Southern Rhodesian problem, will my right hon. Friend consider what moral and material assistance should now be given to the Freedom Fighters of Zimbabwe?

Mr. Stewart: That is a very different question. I have never believed that a wise solution to this problem could be achieved by the use of force. I believe that the decision taken by the Rhodesian Front inevitably means the isolation of their country from the world and is a policy that cannot in the end be maintained. Sooner or later, that will be apparent to them all.

Mr. Evelyn King: Were not sanctions originally justified to this House upon the ground that they would induce an agreement, and, if so, is not that no longer credible? Do sanctions then continue as a punishment, and, if so, is not the difficulty of that that they punish the British taxpayer and the Rhodesian African and not the Rhodesian European?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. The statements of the illegal régime itself make it clear that it was the pressure of sanctions that made it willing even to discuss at all. The discussions failed, but if the Rhodesian illegal régime were allowed to suppose that sanctions could be dropped there would be very little prospect of getting, as in the end there must be, a situation in which there are people in Rhodesia who would be prepared to come to terms. I think that was in the mind of our predecessors in Government when they themselves threatened sanctions.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I ask the Foreign Secretary two questions? First, is it a fact that the African chiefs, although nominated by the illegal régime, have declared against Mr. Smith's constitution, and that, therefore, the whole of African opinion, all the 4½ million, are united against him?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State himself go to the Security Council in New York and use his great authority and the

power of world opinion to ensure that sanctions are loyally carried out?

Mr. Stewart: I believe it is true that not merely the opinion of the minority European electorate, but the immense weight of African opinion as well, was against the proposal. I see that it has been claimed by Mr. Smith that there is African support for his proposal. There is no evidence whatever for that. One would have supposed, if he thought that there was African support, that he would have given the Africans the opportunity to express their opinion.
Returning to the previous question, the hon. Member may have noticed a letter to The Times last November, written by Mr. Mkudu, the Opposition Leader in the Rhodesian Legislature, on the effect of sanctions, in which he said:
No one need suppose that African voices will be raised in favour of ending sanctions. To do that would be parting with our children's heritage for a mess of pottage.
As to action in the Security Council, what is imperatively needed is the rigorous observance of the existing sanctions. Her Majesty's Government have been most careful to observe sanctions and to co-operate fully with the United Nations Supervisory Committee in dealing with any cases of reported evasions of sanctions. We shall press strongly at the Security Council for the resolute observance of the policy which the Council has already laid down.

Mr. David Steel: We on this bench accept the logic of closing the respective Missions now that the Smith régime has finally renounced the authority of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Governor. Will the Secretary of State take his own logic a stage further and make it explicit that the "Fearless" proposals are now withdrawn by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Stewart: I said yesterday that the action of the illegal régime and the result of the referendum had pushed the "Fearless" proposals off the table. When there are people in power in Rhodesia who share our principles, those proposals would be available as a starting point from which discussions could begin.

Mr. Paget: Does not the withdrawal by Her Majesty's Government of the Governor amount in practice to a recognition of the fact that this is now a foreign


country? Secondly, has not the effect of isolating Rhodesia by sanctions reduced the number of those who wish to retain the link with England, and will not further isolation drive them further and further into the arms of South Africa?

Mr. Stewart: The resignation of the Governor does not in the least imply that this is a foreign country. It must be remembered that in the eyes of the whole world this is an illegal régime. That is the decision of the Security Council which I trust all nations will continue to respect. That is one additional reason for not keeping a Residual Mission in Rhodesia and for the closure of Rhodesia House in this country. It is for those in Rhodesia who want a settlement on principles that we could accept to try to increase their influence in their own country.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of communications which he says the Government are reconsidering. He has just said that the Government think it a good thing to have a wide range of contacts with people in Rhodesia. Will he therefore say, here and now, that he will resist any instruction from the United Nations which will mean that these communications can no longer take place?

Mr. Stewart: There would be no question, if a resolution were passed by the United Nations, of making it impossible for a Rhodesian who wished to have with us a sensible contact from coming here and doing so. But this is a rather different thing from what is sometimes known as the communications sanction. We are carrying out a fresh study of what, in present circumstances, that would involve.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend not worry too much about the closing of the Mission in Rhodesia or the closing of Rhodesia House? Surely the illegal régime has all the sympathy and contacts it needs on the benches opposite?

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Is it not abundantly clear that the maintenance of communications and points of contact does not necessarily imply de jure recognition and, still less, approval of another régime? Is there not abundant

precedent for this in, for example, the maintenance of contact and communication with the then illegal régime in Russia from the date of the revolution until recognition in, I think, 1922?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not fully seized of the unique nature of this case. Not only is this régime in rebellion against the Crown. It is also a régime which the whole world has rejected and has refused to recognise. It is, moreover, founded on a racial principle which, if persisted in, will be disastrous to Rhodesia, to Africa and to the rest of the world. We have to treat this as a special case.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend not consider some direct negotiation with friends and allies who are flouting the United Nations policy on sanctions, particularly countries like West Germany and Zambia? Will he say whether it is the Government's intention to continue financing or helping to finance the university in Salisbury.

Mr. Stewart: The amount of Government finance to that university is now very small indeed. It is for certain British universities with contacts there to decide what would be the right policy for them.
As for possible sanction-breaking by other countries, it is our practice, if we have evidence, to draw it to the notice of the country concerned and, in some cases, of the United Nations.

Sir John Rodgers: Will the Foreign Secretary carry his answers a little further and give a categoric assurance to the House that he repudiates the idea that in seeking a solution force should be used?

Mr. Stewart: That has been made clear many times and I do so again.

Mr. Luard: The Foreign Secretary said that other members of the United Nations shared with us the responsibility for enforcing the sanctions. Does that not include South Africa and Portugal? Can he say whether our Government will be accepting proposals from the United Nations to extend the sanctions to South Africa and Portugal? If not, can he say whether, in return, sufficient assurances will be demanded from them that they will bring the necessary pressure to bear against the Smith régime?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir, we could not undertake to agree to an extension of sanctions of that kind. The House will have seen reports of the speech by Lord Caradon at the United Nations which made our position clear.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Will the personal financial sacrifice of the Governor be remedied?

Mr. Stewart: That is perhaps not a matter for discussion here, but I have it in mind.

Mr. George Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend considered all the implications of withdrawing our Residual Mission from Salisbury? Has he considered what might happen if a British subject visits a relative, perhaps parents, in Rhodesia, voices his views against the Smith régime publicly, and is then thrown into prison without trial? Who will represent him, who will visit him, and who will take up his case?

Mr. Stewart: Everyone must recognise the nature of this régime and the risks which civilised people run if they visit it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter. But we must move on.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to delete the provision in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965, which enables the suspension of capital punishment to be prolonged beyond the five-year experimental period by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965, which suspended capital punishment for an experimental period of five years, contains a provision which enables the operation of that Act to be extended by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. I seek leave to bring in a Bill to delete that provision which is open to serious objections.
First, it confronts Parliament with an extremely restricted and somewhat invidious choice, either to prolong the suspension of capital punishment under the 1965 Act or simply to allow the Act to lapse, in which case the much criticised provision of the Homicide Act, 1957, would automatically come back into force. This entirely overlooks the possibility that Parliament might wish to restore capital punishment, but under revised conditions.
Apart from that, it would be most improper for an important decision of this kind to be rushed through by this shortcut procedure. It would be quite impossible, in a single debate, to examine adequately all the facts, figures and arguments which will be presented on both sides. Whether capital punishment is to be abolished or restored, the decision should be taken only after the fullest discussion through the normal process of an Act of Parliament. That is precisely the purpose of the Bill that I ask leave to bring in.
There are those who regard capital punishment as a simple moral issue on which one need only consult one's conscience. But that was certainly not the view of Parliament when it passed the 1965 Act. The fact that capital punishment was not abolished, but was merely suspended for five years, shows clearly that it was regarded by Parliament as a practical question to be decided in the light of the experience, which it was hoped to gain during the experimental period. We shall, therefore, have to


study most carefully any changes in the trend of crime since suspension and analyse all the various factors which may have influenced it.
The procedure prescribed in the 1965 Act would be appropriate only if there were general agreement in this House and outside that capital punishment ought to be abolished. That is obviously not the case. Recent opinion polls show that over 80 per cent. of those questioned want capital punishment restored. Many who previously supported abolition have now changed their minds, and they include hon. Members of this House.
That is hardly very surprising when one looks at the figures which have been issued by the Home Secretary. Since December, 1964, when executions were stopped, there has been a startling increase in the number of capital murders—that is to say, murders of the types to which the death penalty used to apply. During the last four years, there have been 161 capital murders. That figure compares with 71 during the four previous years. In other words, since capital punishment was suspended the number of capital murders has increased nearly 130 per cent.
It may be argued that that merely reflects the increase in crime of all kinds. But that is not borne out by the figures issued by the Home Office. While the number of capital murders has more than doubled, the number of non-capital murders, to which the death penalty did not apply and which were, therefore, not affected by its suspension, has remained completely constant. In fact, the number of non-capital murders actually dropped by about 3 per cent. during this period.
In this connection, Parliament will have to consider also whether the alternative of so-called life imprisonment provides a sufficient deterrent. Recent judgments show that the terms of imprisonment imposed for capital murder may be no longer and in some cases very much shorter than sentences for robbery with violence. That means that a person who has committed a serious crime may have nothing to lose by shooting the policeman who comes to arrest him.
Some people—though I am not one of them—may feel that the total number of murders is so small that it does not matter much whether there are a few more or a

few less. But no one can help being disturbed by the sudden growth of armed gangsterism. This kind of crime was so rare in Britain that, until recently, no official statistics were kept. Up till 1967, the Home Office records lumped together all offences of all kinds involving firearms—big offences and little ones. But even these global figures are very revealing. During the four years before the suspension of capital punishment, these offences averaged about 600 a year. During the four years since suspension, they have risen to 2,500, exactly four times as many.
It is only in the last two years that the Home Office has published separately the number of armed robberies, but these figures already give an indication of the alarming rate at which crimes of this type are increasing. The figures for 1968 show that the number of robberies, in which guns were fired or carried, were 40 per cent. higher than in the previous year. As the Chairman of the Police Federation pointed out on the radio this morning, robbers no longer hesitate, as they did before, to take out a gun and to use it, if necessary, to accomplish their crime or to resist arrest.
My only reason for quoting these facts and figures is to emphasise that the question of capital punishment raises a wide variety of quite complex problems which could not possibly be discussed adequately in a single debate on a simple Motion. The House is, of course, not being asked today to vote for or against capital punishment. My Bill does not seek to prejudge the basic issue. As I have explained, its sole purpose is to ensure that this important decision shall not be unduly rushed.

4.6 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: It has been argued that the Bill of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) would not in any way prejudice the substance of the question whether we should bring back capital punishment. I will deal in a moment with the procedural point with which the right hon. Gentleman started.
First, it must be pointed out that there is considerable substance in the reasoning behind the introduction of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman went on


in his speech to show this. Those who are opposed to capital punishment can fairly take the view that the effect of the Bill would be to stimulate support for the return of capital punishment and take the argument away from such experience and facts and figures as we have. Already, we have had a reference to the Bill on the B.B.C. this morning by a spokesman of the Police Federation.
However, the Bill deals with murder and not with the carrying of firearms. What the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to is the yearly crime figures, which he talks about in another context, but does not apply to this point about police murders.
When we last debated the matter, in November, 1966, the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that unless capital punishment was reintroduced policemen would be more and more in peril of being killed. That was two and a half years ago. Since then, not a single policeman has been killed. We have all been spared the terrible experience of another Shepherd's Bush.
When discussing these figures, it is important to bear in mind that because we have so few murders in this country we must be careful how we argue from the figures.
However, we have evidence from many countries covering a great number of years, and I hope that, when we come to the real debate on the Resolution, we shall consider the contrasting figures in respect of the murder rates in adjoining American States over 30 years, some of them having capital punishment and others not having it. None of the evidence suggests any relationship between the murder rate and the existence of capital punishment.
In any event, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be impressed by the fact that all but one of our sister European

democracies has abolished capital punishment. There is no capital punishment from the northern tip of Norway to the southern tip of Italy. In an age of gas chambers and mass executions, these countries have found, as we have, a new safeguard and a new dignity in refusing the State the right to take life.

Let me come to the procedural point on which I had thought the right hon. Gentleman would concentrate. It is this: in 1965, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, as introduced by Sydney Silverman, was intended, like most of our legislation, to have permament effect. The provision limiting the life of the Act to five years unless there was an affirmative Resolution by Parliament came from an Amendment by Mr. Henry Brooke.

This Amendment was accepted by the sponsors of the Bill, hon. Members from all parties, in a spirit of compromise. It was a typical compromise of our Parliamentary life. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do is to upset that compromise. His Bill, as he has been frank enough to say, would put Parliament back to the position it was in before the Silverman Act; that is to say, it would be necessary to go through the whole legislative process to reaffirm the decision made by Parliament in 1965.

Let us remember that at the same time as Parliament came to that decision it also agreed the procedure to be followed. That was for reaffirmation by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. I ask hon. Members to honour this very carefully balanced agreement and not to give permission for the right hon. Gentleman's Bill to be introduced.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House dvided: Ayes 126, Noes 256.

Division No. 284.]
AYES
[4.13 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Crouch, David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dance, James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Henry
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Doig, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Drayson, G. B.




Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Stodart, Anthony


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Temple, John M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tilney, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tomney, Frank


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wiggin, A. W.


Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Willaims, Donald (Dudley)




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hunt, John
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wright, Esmond


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton
Wylie, N. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Younger, Hn. George


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Miss Harvie Anderson and


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. David Ensor.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Albu, Austen
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hannan, William


Anderson, Donald
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Archer, Peter
Dell, Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Astor, John
Dewar, Donald
Hazell, Bert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dickens, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dobson, Ray
Henig, Stanley


Awdry, Daniel
Driberg, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunn, James A.
Hooley, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Barnes, Michael
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bell, Ronald
English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hynd, John


Binns, John
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Body, Richard
Ewing, Mrs. Winfred
Janner, Sir Barnett


Booth, Albert
Faulds, Andrew
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boston, Terence
Finch, Harold
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boyden, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brooks, Edwin

Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham.S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Forrester, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foster, Sir John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bryan, Paul
Fowler, Gerry
Jopling, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gardner, Tony
Kenyon, Clifford


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ginsburg, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Coe, Denis
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lawson, George


Coleman, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, J. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Conlan, Bernard
Gregory, Arnold
Lestor, Miss Joan


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lipton, Marcus


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lomas, Kenneth


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Loughlin, Charles


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Luard, Evan


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lubbock, Eric







Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oram, Albert E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


McBride, Neil
Orme, Stanley
Skeffington, Arthur


McCann, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Slater, Joseph


MacColl, James
Oswald, Thomas
Small, William


Macdonald, A. H.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Snow, Julian


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


Maclennan, Robert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taverne, Dick


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Park, Trevor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Manuel, Archie
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thornton, Ernest


Marks, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Urwin, T. W.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Marquand, David
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mayhew, Christopher
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mendelson, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, David




Wellbeloved, James


Mikardo, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Millan, Bruce
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Whitaker, Ben


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Probert, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rees, Merlyn
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Molloy, William
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Winnick, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roebuck, Roy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woof, Robert


Murray, Albert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Worsley, Marcus


Newens, Stan
Rowlands, E.



Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Ryan, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oakes, Gordon
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. William Hamling and


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. Martin Maddan.


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT OF BRITISH TOURIST AUTHORITY, ENGLISH TOURIST BOARD, SCOTTISH TOURIST BOARD AND WALES TOURIST BOARD

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have added to my selection a debate on Amendment No. 89, in page, 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) The British Travel Association shall, in consultation with the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board, establish machinery to co-ordinate the activities of all four Tourist Boards mentioned in this paragraph on matters affecting Great Britain as a whole,
and Amendment No. 90, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) The British Travel Association, the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall in the interests of economy and efficiency establish common services in appropriate cases and such common services shall be administered by the British Travel Association,
which will be taken together.
May I remind the House that after this first debate on Amendment No. 2, we will have a Division, without debate, on Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'sixteen'.
With Amendment No. 2 I suggest that we take Government Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 10, leave our 'A Tourist Authority' and insert 'Travel Association', and Amendments Nos. 17, 25, 31 and 33, which are related Amendments; and Government Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42, 44, 63, 64, 81 and 86, all of which are linked.

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order. Should not Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'Authority' and insert 'Association', be

included, because it is associated with the the same debate?

Mr. Speaker: Amendment No. 1 is not selected.

Sir C. Taylor: I know that it is not selected. But it would make the Bill a nonsense if Amendment No. 1 was not taken with this group of Amendments, because, if we were successful in winning the Division, it would leave in the word "Authority" instead of "Association". I am not asking for a debate on it. I am asking whether it could be included in this group of Amendments, because I think that it would be helpful.

Mr. Speaker: I have a note that I made when selecting these Amendments yesterday that this is a printing matter. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to amend "Tourist Authority" to "Tourist Association", which is a heading printed over Part I. I do not think that this arises. It is a minor point.

Mr. Rodgers: This group of Amendments is concerned with what should be the name of the principal body concerned with tourism, the top of the pyramid; whether it should be called the British Travel Association, as some hon. Members would like, or whether it should be called the British Tourist Authority, as we prefer.
In the original Bill, as printed, the words "British Tourist Authority" appeared. Due to a combination of circumstances in Committee, and somewhat to the surprise of its sponsors, there was a change whereby "British Travel Association" was submitted for "British Tourist Authority". This change was due partly to the temporary absence of some Government Members and partly to the very effective appeal to sentiment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).
The change was made partly as a measure of good will towards the British Travel Association, as it now is and has been for some time. It was a warm and well-intentioned gesture which we may all applaud without necessarily endorsing its outcome. Although for most people it was essentially a sentimental gesture, I think that there was behind it something slightly more as far as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) was concerned.
It was clear from what he said in our early discussions, though I hope he was persuaded by the course of them, that he wished, broadly speaking, to preserve the status quo, and that he was hoping that a British Tourist Authority, or a body of the kind for which the Bill provides, whatever it is called, would not be set up. In other words, he secretly hoped that the first part of the Bill would not take effect and things would be left substantially as they were. By refusing to change the name the hon. Gentleman hoped somehow that we would also refuse to change the nature of the animal.
This is the background to our discussions. I certainly have no complaint; it would not be proper for me to have any complaint, about what was decided in Committee. But I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne, approaching the matter somewhat later and on reflection, and given that he has made his gesture, will now recognise that we cannot change the substance by changing the shadow and that it is far better to revert to the name "British Tourist Authority", which was printed in the original Bill.
There are two important points which the House may wish to bear in mind. First, the new organisation will not only be concerned with travel, bringing people to Britain and moving them about; it will be concerned positively with all the facilities and the whole of the industry which goes to make up tourism. It will be available in conjunction with the three country boards to ensure that British tourism flourishes and more and more people come here to take advantage of it. To say "travel" would be to narrow the sphere with which the Bill very properly deals.
Secondly, whether we like the new organisation or not—and that it has gathered some friends as time has gone by—it is certainly not an association. An association is a joining together; an authority is something rather different.
We would not contemplate referring to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Association, the White Fish Association, or the Port of London Association. "Association" would be the wrong name to apply to this sort of body. I think that it clearly follows that to call the new tourist body an association is to describe

it wrongly. It is something rather different.
The House may argue whether we might have called it a commission or by some other name. I concede that different views might be taken. But there is no proposal to do anything other than rename the association an authority. That is the choice before the House.
Lord Geddes, as the House knows, has been the distinguished chairman of the B.T.A., for a long time. He says:
By the very nature of the new Authority it would be inappropriate that it should be called an association.
I think that he very fairly sums up the position.
4.30 p.m.
We should also bear in mind that the British Travel Association is not dead yet. There is bound to be a transition period as it hands over many of its responsibilities to the new authority and to the boards. To take away its name now, even before it is dissolved, would be most inappropriate, and, in a way, rather an insult to it, Which I know is not what the hon. Member for Eastbourne had in mind.
The B.T.A. has made it clear that it does not want its name carried on in this way, In Committee, the hon. Gentleman perhaps implied, and certainly some of us for a moment wondered, whether the B.T.A. would wish its name carried on. It has now made its position clear. It does not think that the new body should be called the British Travel Association.
The B.T.A. as we have known it has done a first rate job. Tributes have been paid to it during our discussions on the Bill, and no doubt they will be paid again. The right course is to leave it with its name to the end, to remember it for all it has done, and to reverse the decision which was made in Committee to substitute British Travel Association for the more appropriate British Tourist Authority.

Sir C. Taylor: There are no politics in this Amendment, or at least I do not think so. The Minister said that perhaps I was surprised that the Committee agreed to the change of name from British Tourist Authority to British Travel Association. I was not in the least surprised. I put it down to the cogent arguments that I put to the Committee, not to the absence of Government supporters on that day. I


think that the Committee was convinced that my arguments for the continuation of the name British Travel Association were so strong that it decided the name should continue.
I realise that the animal, as the Minister said must undergo some changes, but I still do not believe that there is any reason to change the name. I said that there were no politics involved, but I feel that perhaps there may be some, in that in Government circles there are some doctrinaire feelings against any hint of private enterprise. The British Travel Association had a considerable amount of private enterprise attaching to it. It started as a private enterprise arrangement, and it was only later that the Government decided to support it, and to support it also with funds.
I understand that at the annual general meeting of the British Travel Association only one person voted for the new name British Tourist Authority, but my information may be wrong. I believe that with the exception of one person everyone expressed the hope that the name British Travel Association would continue.
I think that we have too many authorities. I suggest that the word "authority" stinks of Government control, Government interference, and bureaucracy. I believe that people abroad know what authority means, and that they will look upon the name British Tourist Authority as something to do with the Government. More and more conservative and liberal people throughout the world are taking the view that the word "authority" is a nasty word.
I do not believe that there is any need to change the name. It may not be an association any longer, but the British Travel Association has been the envy of many countries. Even countries which have Ministers of Tourism have admired the work of the British Travel Association. Many of them have said to me, "We only wish that we had an association of this kind, rather than an organisation which is run by the Government".
About £200,000 per annum was subscribed to the British Travel Association from private sources, which shows how much people thought of this body. I wonder whether those people will be so forthcoming in supporting the new British Tourist Authority if the House decides that that shall be the name.
We must consider the question of posters, brochures, writing paper, and all the pamphlets and leaflets which will probably have to be scrapped because they are printed in the name of the British Travel Association. I hope that to save money there will not be small stickers put on the pamphlets saying, "For British Travel Association, read British Tourist Authority".
I ask the House to realise that an enormous amount of money has been spent on publicising the name British Travel Association. I can imagine what hon. Members would think if the manufacturers of Player's cigarettes, having spent enormous sums of money on publicising the name Player's, suddenly called them "Professional's" or "Gentlemen's". I can imagine how much of the money spent on publicising Player's cigarettes would go down the drain before people started asking for 20 Professional's, or 20 Gentlemen's.
The whole idea of changing the name is absolute madness. We have spent millions of pounds on publicising the British Travel Association throughout the world, and it is known and respected as such. Nobody has yet heard of the British Tourist Authority.
The British Travel Association had a board of experts, and good luck to them. They received no pay, allowances, or expenses. They did their work as a labour of love to the industry, because it may be that in other ways they were connected with it. Somebody from Thomas Cook, somebody from Cunard, somebody from the British Hotels and Restaurants Association, somebody from the Caterers' Association, somebody from the local authorities, did the work as a labour of love. Under Lord Geddes this work cost very little, and private enterprise people who derived some advantage from the tourist trade were prepared to subscribe to this body.
I pay tribute to the work done by Lord Geddes and his predecessors and their staff. I hope that the staff will be kept on, but I suggest that "authority" is a horrid word. It is a dictatorial word. It is a word which we in England do not like very much. There are too many authorities. There is the Airports Authority, the Port of London Authority, and so on. They all stink of Government interference. I want to see more private


enterprise. That is my only political point.
"Association" is a much nicer word than "authority". The British Travel Association is respected and known throughout the world, and I hope that we shall keep the name.

Mr. John Peyton: I am very glad to support every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). The Government's attitude is that one can call it by any name, so long as it is one of their choosing. They revert by natural affection to a title including the word "authority" even when tourism, surely the most voluntary of all human activities, is concerned. They show their well-known contempt for any decision of a Standing Committee if it goes against their wishes.
With the thronged audience behind them—those great, aching, empty benches, which look so much better than when they are full—the Government are waiting until we have expressed our views and will then blow the trumpets, and in will come those well-disciplined, docile cohorts, who will vote the Amendment through.
But the Minister of State should be forced to accept at least his measure of humiliation before "authority" has its way. This is what he stands for—the authority of the Government over tourism. We know what this means. We have only to go to London Airport, an organisation for which his Department is answerable, to see how beastly authority can be, how clumsy and incompetent—I ought to wait in respectful deference for the Minister of State to finish his long conversation with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench—I am sure that we are all very much obliged to him. If he can give some indication of his willingness at least to listen to the arguments, they might be a little shorter.
It is an act of singular discourtesy and disregard for Parliamentary opinion that the Government, despite their reverse in Standing Committee, should so lightly revert to their own wording. I realise that one would be hoping—[Interruption.] I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to carry out that conversation, he will either keep so quiet that I cannot hear any of it or rise and speak loudly enough for us all to share it.

Mr. William Rodgers: I was saying to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland how much I regretted that the hon. Gentleman was making a speech so out of keeping with the spirit of the Committee debates, where we regarded these matters as serious ones and not as party issues to be used unscrupulously, when there is so much at stake. That is what I was saying.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the Minister. Had he told me that before, I might have credited him with a breadth of mind which I had not been disposed to give him before.
Why cannot the Government accept the spirit which informed the Committee? He is now saying that the Committee rose above party politics, so why can we not accept its decision? Why must he come, with his Department's instructions and his party's dogmatic mandate, to insist that we should call this body an authority?
To what extent will the authority, as opposed to the Association, be dependent on voluntary finance and effort? I hope that a body born in such a clearly dictatorial spirit as that which now informs the hon. Gentleman will not receive the wide voluntary financial support which he may expect. I do not want to prolong this rather silly argument.
This is another typical example of a dogmatic, dictatorial, Socialist Administration refusing to accept even a very small Amendment made in Committee. They must have every word of what they think is right, which is centred upon and rooted out of this odious word "authority", which is so dear to their hearts.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I was surprised that the Minister of State should say that the name of this body must exactly reflect its function and convey that it is connected with the whole extent of tourism and is something more than an association. He did not give that same impression in Committee, when we felt that any such argument was far outweighed by the undoubted good will enjoyed by the perhaps less accurate terminology of the old name. He underestimates the good will attaching to the


old name, which is known not only here but in many parts of the world. Surely it is folly to abandon such a name just for the sake of precision.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that the new name would more exactly represent the function of this body, I was alarmed. If "tourism" is more accurate, surely "authority" has ominous connotations. Does it imply that the industry will in future be run on a more authoritative basis? I hope not, because it is a most unsuitable industry to be run in that way. There is more than good will, there is affection and high regard attaching to the old name. Today, we are surrounded by boards, authorities and commissions, which are not particularly beloved of anyone. They are suffered—perhaps, in some cases, hated and resented—rather than regarded with affection. The Government should be glad to have at least one body which enjoys a measure of affection and regard, not only in Britain but in many parts of the world.
The old name, British Travel Association, had attached to it something of the voluntary—my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) called it "amateur"—spirit. People from many walks of life have been willing to give their time and services to the Association.
My hon. Friends and I are not happy about the form of the new organisation; at the fact that it will not have a larger membership which will permit a larger contribution to be made by those in trades analogous to tourism. We fear that the new name will reflect this change in the composition of the organisation, which will be entirely Government appointed, directly or indirectly. We hope that our misgivings will prove exaggerated. I hope that my fears will be shown to be groundless and that the new body will work with as much good will as the old one.
The Government are unnecessarily abandoning a useful name which enjoyed valuable co-operation and good will. For a specious attachment to exactitude, they are adopting terminology which cannot be of help to the industry. I therefore hope that the Government will have second thoughts about their proposal.

Mr. John Pardoe: I hope that the Minister will not be as sensitive to my remarks as he was to those of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), although I appreciate that he may feel sensitive when he hears talk of bureaucracy. Indeed, in Committee, the hon. Gentleman said that it was nonsense to talk of this as an extension of bureaucracy.
It is worth recalling that in Committee the hon. Gentleman warned against rising costs and said that "limited extra overheads" would be involved, with "some additional demand" on money and manpower. How limited will the additional overheads be and how much demand for additional money and manpower will be made?
If we were discussing only the question of changing the organisation's name I would not be worried. However, I am certain that the administrative costs of the new authority will rise drastically, whatever else will happen, so that in five to 10 years' time its cost will be running at a level which hon. Members have not even remotely contemplated.
I have close knowledge of the British Egg Marketing Board which, when set up 10 years ago, was estimated to cost the produced 7½ per cent. of its administrative costs. That figure has turned out to be 25 per cent. While that board is not completely parallel with the one we are discussing, it shows what can happen to bureaucratic juggernauts of this kind.
While I am not too worried about the change of name, and appreciate that the B.T.A. has no objection to its name being changed, I take strong objection to the proposed change of substance. Will the new organisation be able to carry out the same functions if it is known as an association compared with it's being known as an authority? In other words, are we on a legal point in that if it is not known as an authority it will not be able to operate effectively? I ask this question in view of the Minister's statement in Committee:
… what we are proposing is no longer an association. It is a statutory organisation, board, authority—call it what you will. It is no longer an association. For that reason alone we have to adopt a title that clearly makes it appear to be a statutory organisation.
Must we and, if we do not, will it be able to function in the way laid down in the Bill?
The hon. Gentleman later said:
Surely, we all recognise that tourism is now not a matter simply for voluntary bodies alone. It is a major industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March, 1969; c. 62–3.]
Are we to take it that everything that becomes a major industry must automatically be brought within the control of a statutory board? The Minister adduced an unhappy argument on that occasion and had I been in the Committee at the time I would have corrected him. I trust that he will put the matter right today.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in law, one may have an association which is purely an association and an association which is a limited company; in other words, that one can have a variety of associations?

Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful for that legal explanation, which I hope the Minister will bear in mind.
The Minister also said in Committee that we could not continue with the B.T.A.'s present name and organisation because "an association" meant "a bringing together" of various elements. He cited the Port of London Authority as an instance of where the word "authority" had to be used. I cannot agree that a parallel exists because there are not as many different organisations coming within the Port of London as there are under the co-operative roof of the travel trades.
I am an unashamed co-operator in this matter. The very business of bringing people together in a co-operative endeavour improves the totality of that endeavour. Thus, whether or not there is anything in the change of name, there is a great deal in the change of substance.

Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that the Government will not insist on making the Amendment, particularly since I do not believe that there is anything in the legal point which the Minister made. After all, statutorily, Governments are in the position of Humpty-Dumpty. What they say, about names or anything else, shall be. If they choose to give an association legal powers, it will have legal powers. The Government need not comply with the Companies Act if they are not creating a company in terms of company law.
The substance of the argument is whether the good will of the British Travel Association—that it has enormous good will is not at issue—will be sufficiently retained if we keep its initials and not its full name. The Minister has not deployed that argument, but I do not believe that the initials will be as good as the old name.
In view of the lucid arguments which my hon. Friends have put forward in favour of retaining the name of the British Travel Association, I trust, if the Government will not give way, that they will seek to repeat their success in Committee and defeat the Government proposal.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I make clear that there was no semantic legal argument in what I said. We are simply looking for the best name for the sort of animal which is being created. Despite the ingenious arguments of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Par-doe), we cannot alter the substance of the animal or the Bill by substituting "association" for "authority". The hon. Member did not speak on Second Reading, but he did not vote against the Bill. I hoped that he would consider that the new organisation was a desirable one.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made a speech which fell far short of the level of other contributions we have had on this subject. We have devised the Bill in the best interests of the industry and of the consumer. The hon. Member has the right to express his views. But I hope that he will not damage good will and spoil the prospect of the Bill making an effective contribution to tourism and the growth of balance of payments by suggesting that because he does not like the name somehow it hides something of an ugly totalitarian nature.

Mr. Peyton: No matter how genteel the discussion in Committee, and no matter how he may be satisfied with his motives and satisfied that he is right in setting up yet another authority, the hon. Gentleman must accept that there are others such as myself who, no matter how low the level of discussion, feel equally strongly that he and all he stands for is wrong.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to express that view. I am not quarrelling with his motives. I am asking him not to quarrel with mine. Let him express his view and say that he does not like the word "authority", but he should not suggest that it hides an ulterior motive and thereby unwittingly damage the very cause he has at heart—the future of the tourist industry.
I respect the views of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). He has fought a very gallant rearguard action, if not against all, against many new things in tourism. In all the circumstances it is better to leave the name

"British Travel Association" with the organisation to which we all pay respect, that to attach it to the new organisation which is being set up.

The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that he hoped the misgivings he held would be shown to be without real foundation. I share that view and I think the circumstances will show that they are, in fact, without foundation.

Question put, That that Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 163.

Division No. 285.]
AYES
[5.4 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Alldritt, Walter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kenyon, Clifford


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ensor, David
Lawson, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John (Reading)


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnett, Joel
Finch, Harold
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Binns, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blackburn, F.
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Boston, Terence
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Boyden, James
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bradley, Tom
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Manuel, Archie


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marquand, David


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mendelson, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce



Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coe, Denis
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Conlan, Bernard
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Henig, Stanley
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Murray, Albert


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Neal, Harold


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.


Dempsey, James
Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas


Dickens, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter


Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Park, Trevor




Parker, John (Dagenham)
Rowlands, E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Pavitt, Laurence
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Weitzman, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Mrs. René(W'hampton, N. E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph
Whitaker, Ben


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Small, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, George H. (Nottingham. S.)
Snow, Julian
Wilkins, W. A.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Probert, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rankin, John
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Richard, Ivor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, Ernest
Winnick, David


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tuck, Raphael



Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. John McCann and


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pardoe, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peel, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Bernard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Ridsdale, Julian




Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott, Nicholas


Chataway, Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tilney, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.



McNair-Wilson, Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, A. W.


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Gower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Further Amendment made: No. 3, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'Travel Association'

and insert 'Tourist Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Amendment No. 4 proposed: In page 1, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'sixteen'.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 230.

Division No. 286.]
AYES
[5.16 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Pardoe, John


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, John


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jopling, Michael
Silvester, Frederick


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clark, Henry
Kershaw, Antnony
Stodart, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward (M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Cromt'y)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Drayson, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Walters, Dennis


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Wiggin, A. W.


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wright, Esmond


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Nott, John
Mr. Hector Monro and


Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Grant, Anthony






NOES


Albu, Austen
Beaney, Alan
Brooks, Edwin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Alldritt, Walter
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Binns, John
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Blackburn, F.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Ashley, Jack
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boston, Terence
Coe, Denis


Barnes, Michael
Boyden, James
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Baxter, William
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard




Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hynd, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Paget, R. T.


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lester, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Snow, Julian


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Thornton, Ernest


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tomney, Frank


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitaker, Ben


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Heffer, Eric S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hooley, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.
Woof, Robert


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orbach, Maurice



Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Mr. Neil McBride.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment selected is No. 7, with which we may take Amendments No. 8, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
'and
(c) the Chairman for the time being of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board who shall not take part in any decision of the Authority unless it relates to the carrying on of activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit the United Kingdom or any part of it'.

No. 19, in page 2, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 26 and insert:

(a) to encourage people to visit the United Kingdom;
(b) to encourage people living in Great Britain to take their holidays there; and
(c).

No. 43, in page 5, line 16, leave out 'Northern Ireland'.
No. 45, in page 5, line 19, leave out 'Northern Ireland or'.
No. 75, in page 17, line 19, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections 1(2)(c)'.
No. 76, in page 17, line 19, after '1(4)', insert '2(1)(a)'.
No. 82, in page 20, line 13, at end insert 'nor to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board'.
No. 87, in Title, line 4, after first 'to', insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 96, in page 5, line 20, at end insert:
(4) The British Tourist Authority shall ensure that on any committees which it may establish for the better performance of its functions due representation is given to any corresponding body referred to in subsection (3) of this section at whose request it carries on activities of the kind referred to in that subsection.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'and'.
The Amendment relates to Northern Ireland. The object of the group of Amendments we are discussing is to bring the Northern Ireland Tourist Board more closely into the new system of boards established by the Bill than the Bill proposes.
The first of the related Amendments provides that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board shall be a member of the Board of the B.T.A., but that he shall not take part in any decision on that body unless it relates to the carrying on of its overseas promotional activity. The point of that limitation is that for some time Northern Ireland has had its own system of grading and registration and of grants. Therefore, the grant and registration parts of the Bill are already dealt with by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The limitation to overseas promotion is entirely proper, and it corresponds to the situation in the existing British Travel Association.
The other Amendments provide that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will not be paid by the B.T.A. He can be paid by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, though he is not at present, but that is not a matter for this House.
We feel that the promotion of travel to Northern Ireland inside Great Britain can also be left to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
Amendment No. 96, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), provides that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will be represented on any committees set up by the British Travel Association for the purposes of overseas promotion. This Amendment will no doubt be explained in due course.
The last Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself to which I need refer are those which delete the references to Northern Ireland in Clause 5. Subsection (3) provides for co-operation between the Channel Islands Tourist Board, the Isle of Man Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the new B.T.A. If the proposal I am advancing in my main Admendment is accepted, that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board should be a member of the B.T.A., it is not necessary to retain those provisions in Clause 5 relating to Northern Ireland.
I said that the situation provided for in my Amendment reflects very much the present position in the B.T.A. The present B.T.A. has, in its articles of association, a clause giving it responsibility for the promotion of travel to the United Kingdom by overseas visitors and our amendments would continue that situation.
5.30 p.m.
The significance of the membership of the present B.T.A. Board by the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is that his board is represented in the committee system of the B.T.A. wherever appropriate. Consequently, it is intimately involved in the decisions of the Overseas Committee, for example. Not only does it receive all the literature and become aware of all the proposals relating to overseas promotion for the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is a member of the relevant committees.
We debated this matter in Committee—whether or not genteely is not for me to say, and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is no longer with us, so that we cannot get his comments on it. The result of our discussion then was that the Minister of State undertook to consult again with the Northern Ireland Government. He told us:
I should be happy to give the undertaking to the Committee that between now and


Report, I shall ensure that the proposals in the Bill meet the wishes of the Northern Ireland Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March, 1969; c. 78.]
We hope to hear the results of those consultations but it will be useful if I briefly make the points which are relevant in favour of the Amendments so that the House may judge whether the hon. Gentleman's response is satisfactory.
One relevant point is the situation under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and related Acts. The 1920 Act gives certain responsibilities to Westminster and the residual powers are left with the Government of Northern Ireland. There is no mention of tourism amongst the responsibilities given to Westminster so, prima facie, tourism is a responsibility of the Government of Northern Ireland. If tourism had been as important in 1920 as it now is, and if overseas promotion of tourism had been as important as it now is, it is possible that the Act might not have been drafted in that way.
I do not suggest that there should be any infraction of the responsibilities of the Government of Northern Ireland for domestic tourist matters, nor that any derogation should be made from their responsibility for tourism in general. But it is not inconsistent with the Act that we should adopt some such arrangement as we propose, which would limit the membership of the B.T.A. by the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to overseas promotional matters.
If we consider the other overseas activities of the United Kingdom, we find, for example, that consuls and ambassadors abroad look after Northern Ireland interests as they do the interests of England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland pays the same taxes as any other part of the United Kingdom. That is in contrast with the position of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and there is, therefore, no inconsistency in removing Northern Ireland from Clause 5 and putting it in a different position from those groups of islands.
For most of the matters relevant to tourism, Northern Ireland operates as part of the United Kingdom. The signposting system, including the signposting of historic monuments, which it adopts is the same as the one we have in England,

Scotland and Wales. It is going over to the decimal system because we are. Northern Ireland's balance of payments problem is ours. Therefore, the success or otherwise of Northern Ireland is an integral part of the success or otherwise of the United Kingdom as a whole.
One can go further. One can say that the selling of the United Kingdom as a whole will be more effective if Northern Ireland is part of the selling machine. Yesterday, when we were debating the question of Scotland and Wales and their overseas promotion, the Minister of State said:
It is right that the House should know that the Association's view"—
he was referring to the present British Travel Association—
after very mature consideration and long experience, is that it is in the best interests of Britain as a whole, of Scotland, England and Wales severally, and Northern Ireland"—
these are the relevant words—
that promotion should be of the whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 1130.]
If that is the attitude he takes, it should follow that he accepts our Amendments, or something close to them, because there is an important difference between providing for co-operation between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the B.T.A., which is what the Bill does as it stands, and doing what we propose—imposing a duty on the new B.T.A. to look after the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole as opposed simply to Great Britain in our overseas promotions. If we leave out Northern Ireland from the duties of the new B.T.A., we shall, as it were, be demoting Northern Ireland. Conversely, we can bring it in without any extra cost to the B.T.A.
I have sketched the background so as to allow the House to judge the report which I hope the hon. Gentleman is about to make. Something on the lines of our Amendments would be best and I assume that, if they were adopted, membership of the relevant committees of the new B.T.A. would follow for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
One cannot repeat too often the importance of membership of the relevant committees to the successful operation of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in its overseas promotion and for its work


with the B.T.A. If the hon. Gentleman considers the Amendments not acceptable, I hope that at least he will be able to make some advance on the position as it stands in the Bill, whether by way of saying that the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will be co-opted on to the board of the new B.T.A. or that some other way will be found to make the practice as effective as our Amendments would make it.

Lord Hamilton: These Amendments are of great importance to the future of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. They will directly govern its future growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said, these Amendments represent the only part of the Bill which is applicable to Northern Ireland. Tourism in Northern Ireland is our most spectacular growth industry. In 1968 tourist revenue amounted to £28,500,000. Outside expert opinion has assessed that if the Government at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Government gave this industry sufficient incentive and encouragement we could be earning £50 million per annum in tourist revenue within the next five to seven years.
The rapid growth of tourism is governed and accompanied by changing trends in travel and ever-increasing competitiveness. It must be realised that tourism is as competitive as any other industry. While it must be the objective of the new organisation to create London and the existing tourist circuit as the historic and cultural magnet of the tourist world, it must at the same time provide every incentive to encourage tourists to percolate out and travel to various parts of the United Kingdom, thus creating demand for tourist destinations in those parts, through sophisticated and specialised overseas promotion. In Northern Ireland I am convinced that this can be achieved only through joint promotion, such as is carried out at present between the British Travel Association and the Northern Ireland Board. No other proposal is acceptable or feasible.
This policy is essential if we are to absorb the future influx of visitors, bearing in mind that mass travel is in its infancy and that we are about to enter the jumbo-jet age. Unless this policy is vigorously pursued, both by the Government

and the new organisation, this country will lose a considerable share of the world's tourist market. In Northern Ireland we are creating the tourist demand through providing the necessary accommodation and selling points. In 1968 we welcomed 80,000 North American visitors and 20,000 from Europe and other places.
In spite of our recent internal turbulent difficulties, forward bookings from North America are up by 14 per cent. on 1968. There is a rapid improvement in our external communications. It will be impossible to maintain this annual increase in overseas visitors unless we continue to retain the same promotional facilities we have at present through our excellent business relationship with the British Travel Association.
Since Northern Ireland is a small country, it cannot be sold separately in the World tourist market, from Great Britain. The Northern Ireland Government and the Tourist Board are determined to develop tourist potential and to play a more active part in contributing towards our invisible earnings. With a strictly limited budget of approximately £80,000 a year, including a highly successful promotion in Great Britain, it would be impossible to provide a successful overseas service. Much would depend on efficient market research to find prospective travellers and their holiday preferences. We need research into which of the Northern Ireland holiday products are unique and competitive on a worldwide basis.
It would be impossible to provide and execute a marketing campaign combining all the news media—or through separate workshops—as joint commercial marketing campaigns are of great importance. Also, the constant feed-back of information being carried out so successfully by the overseas offices of the B.T.A. to the various regions of the United Kingdom is invaluable.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board office acts in a dual capacity, encouraging Ulster people to visit Great Britain, thus assisting our balance of payments. An even more important aspect is that Northern Ireland attracts 750,000 visitors from Great Britain each year, many of whom could be described as novice tourists, who make "the big leap across the Irish Sea" as a prelude to tackling the Continent. The Northern Ireland


Tourist Board has a most successful and proven business relationship with B.T.A. and it is essential that the current arrangements should be allowed to continue with the new organisation.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I welcome this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) made the relevant point that in 1920 our view of the economy was such that there was no specification in the Government of Ireland Act relating to the promotion of tourism. Times change and there is no doubt that when the object of tourist promotion is analysed it is seen that this is a matter for which the Westminster Government have a degree of responsibility. The objective of boosting tourism is to create a viable and profitable industry, particularly in the remoter areas. Secondly, it is to help our balance of payments by attracting overseas visitors and persuading our own nationals to spend their holidays here, rather than abroad.
These are matters for which the Westminster Government have a responsibility which extends to Northern Ireland, as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom dom. These two elements show that the Government have a responsibility to assist tourist promotion in Northern Ireland. We are not asking for a change, but a continuation of a highly satisfactory arrangement, and the Government ought to accept our Amendment.
I must emphasise the heavy responsibility which the Government must bear for unemployment in the remoter areas of Northern Ireland. In almost every case the tourist industry thrives in areas where there is a relatively high unemployment rate. In my own constituency the rate is very high, particularly in the glens of Antrim, and in parts of the constituency of my noble Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton). It will be found that there are tourist facilities developing in areas which have a male unemployment rate of 15 per cent. With such a level Governments at both Stormont and Westminster have a responsibility.
In suggesting that the B.T.A. should carry some responsibility for international promotions for Northern Ireland, we are

not asking for something and giving nothing. Northern Ireland represents perhaps one-fortieth, in population terms, of the United Kingdom. In terms of attractive country, tourist facilities, the kind of country which will draw people from the ends of the world through beauty or association, then Northern Ireland provides a good deal more of one-fortieth of the tourist attractions of the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gower: My hon. Friends the Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton) and Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) have explained that they support the Amendment because they believe that it is likely to be beneficial to Northern Ireland. I support it because I believe that it would be beneficial to the tourist industry of the United Kingdom as a whole. There are obvious advantages in overseas promotion. It would be unwise to attempt to present the attractions of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom separately. In the case of Northern Ireland, and doubtless of Scotland and Wales, it would be unduly expensive.
In some respects, the Northern Ireland tourist authorities have had greater experience than we have had. They have already embarked, perhaps in a more methodical—I will not say a more exhaustive—manner on the question of grading and grants. Their experience will obviously be of benefit to us, just as in other respects our experience is valuable to them.
We must consider the arrival from overseas of people to different parts of the United Kingdom. Scottish people who went to North America and Canada return to Scotland. Likewise, people of Northern Ireland who went to North America return home to see the towns from which their ancestors emigrated.
The United Kingdom Board should have the benefit, in its deliberations, of the experience of the Ulster tourist authority, and I favour the idea of its chairman being a member of our board. I am not sure whether it is necessary to limit his function merely to taking part in decisions on overseas promotion. His experience would probably be of great value in making other decisions. I support the Amendment, but I would go a bit further.


It is obviously acceptable in Northern Ireland. It should be acceptable to the Government here, and I hope that they will accept it.

Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said, the purpose of the Amendment is to add the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board to the ex officio members of the British Tourist Authority, thus increasing the maximum number of members of the authority from nine to 10. The chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board would only take part in decisions of the Authority relating to overseas promotional activities, although the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) would like to go further.
The main concern, which I understand completely, is with the desirability of the British Tourist Authority playing a full part in promoting Northern Ireland overseas similar to the part which the British Travel Association has played in the past. I have great sympathy with this, both from the point of view of the direct interest of Northern Ireland, which wants and is entitled to promote tourism and has a great deal to offer, and from the point of view of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is consistent with what we have said previously to point out that tourism in each part of Britain can prosper in proportion as Britain as a whole is promoted abroad. I said last night that it would be most unfortunate if we were so anxious to promote the separate parts of the country that the promotion of the whole country broke down.
I have sympathy with the purposes of the Amendment. I hope that the relations between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the new authority will be at least as close and fruitful as the relations which existed between the board and the British Travel Association.

Lord Hamilton: Lord Hamiltonrose—

Mr. Rodgers: I should like to say a little more first. If I do not deal with the point, perhaps I shall give way later.
The statutory duty of the authority for overseas promotion of tourism under the Bill extends only to such promotion to all parts of Great Britain. But Clause 5(3) makes it possible for the British Tourist Authority to engage in overseas

promotion to all parts of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) argued today, as he did in Committee, about what might or might not have happened in the early 1920s had tourism been as important then as it is now. He said that ensuring that the Westminster Parliament had some responsibility for tourism was not inconsistent with the Government of Ireland Act. I do not think that we can make assumptions of that kind or that it would be profitable to pursue them today.
The Northern Ireland Government are competent, within existing legislation, to be responsible for tourism and financial assistance to tourism in Northern Ireland. It was not the wish of the Northern Ireland Government that the statutory duties of the British Tourist Authority in the Bill should extend to Northern Ireland. I make that clear again, because it is relevant. However, we discovered in framing the Bill that the Northern Ireland Government were in agreement with our making the kind of provision in Clause 5(3), which will enable the new authority to carry on overseas promotional work in co-operation with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, just as the British Travel Association now does.
In Committee, I undertook to check that the provision made in the Bill was still acceptable to Northern Ireland. That I have done. The Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland also asked me to say that it is the intention of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to make a request to the British Tourist Authority under Clause 5(3). I have had the consultations which I promised. The outcome is that the arrangements in the Bill are acceptable to the Northern Ireland Government. However, as I said in Committee, while we pay great attention to the views of the Northern Ireland Government, at the end of the day their view cannot be final: our own Parliament must make up its mind.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman has said that he has carried out his obligation to consult the Northern Ireland Government. Did he say to them, "Are you content with the contents of the Bill?", or did he ask them whether they would prefer the object of the Amendment?

Mr. Rodgers: I am facing a slight difficulty, because it would be improper to divulge the details of correspondence between two Governments. I made clear that the matter had been raised in Committee and that we would prefer to leave the Bill as it stood. This was acceptable to the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce. Had we asked which arrangement he would like best, I cannot say that the Minister of Commerce would not have reached a different conclusion. But my obligation was to make sure that what we were doing was not unacceptable or would not fall short of what Northern Ireland regarded as reasonable.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That being the case, will the Minister at this late stage go back to the Northern Ireland Government and ask which arrangement they would prefer? If he would do that, we would not quarrel with the result, and I think I speak for my hon. Friends here.

Mr. Rodgers: The discussions which we have lately had with the Northern Ireland Government were a renewal of discussions which took place from October onwards. We were in the closest touch with the Northern Ireland Government to discover what arrangements might best meet their need. Until the early part of this year there was no suggestion that the provision in the Bill was not adequate.
It is not for me to discuss the detailed reasons why, if we were starting from scratch, a different view might now be taken. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has a perhaps more dynamic view of what the relationship should be than the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce.
I would prefer not to dwell upon that, I ask hon. Gentlemen not to press me. It would be wrong for me to encroach upon a matter which is not primarily for ourselves. I am not saying that the arrangement is necessarily the one which the Northern Ireland Government would choose. I am saying that the arrangement is acceptable to the Northern Ireland Government and, in our view, while fitting in well with the statutory position, allows the promotional work to be undertaken—and that is the core of what we are now discussing.

Mr. Blaker: May I quote what the Minister said in Committee, as there is a nuance here which is rather important. He has just said that the Government told the Government of Northern Ireland that they would prefer to leave it as it is and asked the Government of Northern Ireland whether it was acceptable to them, to which they replied that it was. That is totally different from asking the Government of Northern Ireland which they would prefer. The Minister said:
I shall ensure that the proposals in the Bill meet the wishes of the Northern Ireland Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March 1969; c. 79.]
Does not the Minister agree that the logical conclusion one would draw from that is that the Government would ask the Government of Northern Ireland, "What are your wishes?"—and not say to them, "We would prefer this; would you accept it?"

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that the words, "We would prefer this; would you accept it?", occurred in any correspondence with the Northern Ireland Government. I tried faithfully to carry out the requirements of the Committee by drawing attention to the discussions in Committee, which were available to the Northern Ireland Government in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I made clear what I said then, and that I was happy to look again at Section 5(3) to see whether, in our best judgment, it represented the best that could be done to ensure that co-operation continues and grows. I gave and fulfilled the undertaking. As I have said to the House, if I had gone back to the Government of Northern Ireland and said that, although we take the view that this is the best arrangement, although it has been fully discussed with them in the past, and although it has now been discussed in Committee, nevertheless we will start from scratch and accept whatever the Northern Ireland Government propose, certainly the result might have been different. However, that is not the way in which we would expect to conduct relations between the two Governments. It was right that we should put the position to them and discover whether the arrangements in the Bill would be acceptable.
I emphasise that the statutory duty of the authority under the Bill for overseas


promotion extends only to such promotion to all parts of Great Britain. I further emphasise that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is not appointed by a United Kingdom Minister. He is not appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales. I seriously suggest that there are constitutional considerations to be borne in mind before we make the Chairman of a Board who is appointed by the Northern Ireland Government an ex-officio member of an Authority which is set up under United Kingdom legislation, and which is responsible ultimately to the House. This is a matter of some concern. It would be wrong for the House lightly to set aside the full implications.
I ask the House to consider carefully what is at stake here. It is not the constitutional relationship between ourselves and the Northern Ireland Government, although, if we have to dwell upon this, we must dwell upon the Act and not upon what the Act might have said had the circumstances at the time been different. It is not the constitutional relationship between the British Tourist Authority and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. What we are concerned with is that the British Tourist Authority should play the same part—or a better part—in promoting Northern Ireland as the British Travel Association has played in the past.
I have said that this will necessarily call for close co-operation and liaison between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Authority. Basically, we should leave it to the good sense of all those involved to establish close working arrangements, whether at Board or at working level. At the end of the day, even if the Chairman were ex-officio a member of the British Tourist Authority, and even if this were regarded as a proper arrangement, this would not in itself ensure the sort of promotion which hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) wish to see. It is the day-to-day working arrangements and the sharing of responsibility at the practical level that is important and not any one decision which is made at the top.

Mr. Henry Clark: Is the Minister saying that there is constitutional difficulty in including the Chairman of the

Northern Ireland Tourist Board as an ex-officio member, or is he saying that there might be difficulty but he is not quite sure? I do not think that the Minister has been absolutely candid on this.

Mr. Rodgers: I have been absolutely candid, although perhaps not absolutely clear. In that case, may I repeat myself? There is a real problem in making the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, who is very properly appointed by the Northern Ireland Government—I think by the Minister of Commerce—an ex-officio member of the British Tourist Authority, which is set up by the Westminster Parliament under the Westminster legislation before us, and to which other members are appointed by United Kingdom Ministers—by the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. I am aware of no precedent for such an arrangement.

Mr. William Baxter: I am interested in the argument about the constitutional issue. If, as my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, he has sympathy with the Amendment, surely the easy way to get over the constitutional problem, if there is one, is for a United Kingdom Minister to appoint this individual who is Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board ex-officio a member of the British Tourist Authority?

Mr. Rodgers: This is an ingenious solution, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, I am not sure that it would be proper for the United Kingdom Government to appoint ex-officio someone who is appointed by another Government, unless my hon. Friend is suggesting that, presumably, the Home Secretary should himself appoint the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

Mr. W. Baxter: There is no insurmountable difficulty in that. He is an individual citizen of the United Kingdom and is entitled to be appointed to the Board if the Home Secretary, or whoever is responsible, seeks to appoint him. If the principle is accepted by my hon. Friend, there is no problem in getting around any constitutional difficulty.

Mr. Rodgers: As I say, it is an ingenious solution. I should be interested to know whether it is acceptable. I should


be surprised if the Northern Ireland Government found it acceptable that the Home Secretary should appoint the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. It may be that it will not be acceptable to hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Henry Clark: I am surprised at the principle enunciated by the Minister. I cannot immediately find a precedent for it. Is he sure that every ex-officio member of, for example, the Agricultural Marketing Board is somebody whose appointment is within the control of the Government? I doubt whether the appointment of every ex-officio member of such a board is controlled by the Government, but this would appear to be the principle enunciated by the Minister.

Mr. Rodgers: I should be interested in any precedents the hon. Member would like to draw to my attention. I am not aware that there are any precedents. I am sorry that this has become a matter of controversy, but I feel that we should focus on the purpose of the Amendment. I respect the reason that it was first brought up in Committee, as indeed I respect the reason that it has been brought up today. The subject for concern is that matters of promotion should be carried on at the same time. I suggest that we should concentrate on that aspect rather than on niceties of relations between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, which might lead us into deep waters.
I have simply said that we do not think it right in all the circumstances to provide that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, who is appointed by the Northern Ireland Government under its own legislation, should be ex-officio a member of the British Tourist Authority whose statutory duties under legislation before the Westminster Parliament do not extend to Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Dempsey: There is a great deal to be said for co-operation in these matters. Anybody who knows Northern Ireland is aware of the unemployment situation in parts of that country. If tourism promotes employment there, it is a worthwhile venture. Is there any particular

constitutional difficulty to prevent the British Tourist Authority from co-opting the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board when the authority is dealing with matters relating to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has made a shrewd and constructive suggestion. We do not envisage a tightly-knit body of men who would never consult or invite into their meetings others with something to contribute.
It is not for me to commit the members of the authority or the members of the board, but speaking for myself I can see circumstances in which, if matters of particular interest to Northern Ireland are being considered by the authority, it might invite the chairman to attend meetings. This might be the case, but it would be wrong for me in dealing with the legislation to commit anybody on those lines. I feel that this is the way in which things will develop at all levels. On the level of the authority, on the level of senior staff, indeed at every level, there will be continuing and close contact. I am sure that the authority will find a way to satisfy the desire which is at the heart of all our contributions this afternoon.

Mr. Blaker: I welcome the last few words of the Minister of State since they put a different complexion on what I intended to say. I also welcome the two shrewd interventions of hon. Members opposite, which have helped the Minister to reach a conclusion that is more satisfactory to my hon. Friends and myself than at one time I feared likely.
I lay emphasis on the Minister's last few words, although he made particularly heavy weather of the matter of appointment by the Government of Northern Ireland of somebody who would be ex officio a member of a statutory body set up by this House. He seemed to be talking about the Government of Northern Ireland as if it were not part of the United Kingdom. He was referring to Great Britain when in fact he meant the United Kingdom. The Government and the House have a responsibility for Northern Ireland which is particularly marked and clear in relation to overseas affairs, which after all is what we are talking about.
My hon. Friends and my noble Friend were right when they made the point that we are considering the common interest of the whole of the United Kingdom, and this was reflected in the Minister's remarks. It is to our benefit if Northern Ireland is successful in its overseas promotion. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton) referred to the tremendous leap in the earnings from tourists in Northern Ireland. Everybody who is attracted from America to Northern Ireland is a potential visitor also to England, Scotland and Wales, and other parts of the United Kingdom which will thereby receive earnings from those visitors.
6.15 p.m.
We are worried that Clause 5 on its own does not do enough. Co-operation is different from integration. Our Amendments were directed to integration, and it is our fear that, if we were simply to rely on co-operation on the lines laid down in Clause 5, over a period of 10 years there would be a gradual divergence of attitude and approach between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the British Travel Association. This probably would not be apparent from day to day, but over a period of some 10 years they may well take separate routes.
If in matters of tourism the closest integration can be achieved within the constitutional situation, then the argument for that integration is overwhelming. The Minister himself made the argument yesterday in the passage to which I have already referred. I hope that the Minister will use his great influence with the boards when they are set up. He has power under the Bill to issue directives. But even if he does not issue a directive, I hope that he will use his great powers of persuasion to make sure that the work of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and that of the British Travel Association is closely integrated. In relying on the Minister's last words to that effect, and in the hope that he will have further discussions with the Government of Northern Ireland to see how those last words will be put into effect in a positive way, I should be happy, if my hon. Friends agree, to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I rise to pay a brief tribute to the characteristic generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), that led him to see something substantial in the last words of the Minister. Despite the prod at the Minister by his hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), he did not go far enough. There was something extremely niggardly and ungenerous in his attitude.
The organisations that are to be set up are not of great hierarchical importance and as yet have not an integrity which we need to defend to the utmost. Yet the Minister finds it impossible to allow the point that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board should not be an ex-officio member of the British Travel Authority. That is very odd and niggardly. Although my hon. Friends are right to gloss over this difference, which is not of cardinal importance and should not lead us through the Division Lobby, it is, nevertheless, a small point which will, at least, I hope, put to some small embarrassment a Government who show themselves totally incapable of any breadth of view.

Mr. Blaker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (offices the holders of which are disqualified under that Act), in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there shall be inserted at the appropriate point in alphabetical order the words 'Any member in receipt of remuneration of the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board'.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we are to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 77, and Amendment No. 120, in page 2, line 5, leaev out subsection (4).

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry that, judging for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) by my narrow-once again disappointed the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) by my narrow mindedness and lack of generosity. Perhaps it is too much to hope that he will take a more generous view of me or of my


Government. He may like to know, because he may not have followed the Committee's proceedings very closely, that this Amendment is designed to meet wishes expressed in Committee, largely by his side. It was said that it would be a pity if the Bill precluded the possibility of Members of Parliament being appointed to the tourist boards.
I must make it clear that I can hold out no promise to the hon. Member or to anyone else of an appointment to the boards when they are set up. However, on reflection, it seemed to us that, just as hon. Members have in the past made a valuable contribution to tourism—I pay my respects here to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor)—it would be a pity if, in future, a Member who could serve helpfully was prevented from doing so because payment would be involved. The Amendment removes that disability, and I hope that, for that reason, it will be acceptable to the House.

Sir C. Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to our request, which came from both sides of the Committee—that Members of Parliament, just because they are Members of Parliament, should not necessarily be excluded from being part-time or full-time members of the boards or of the British Tourist Authority.
I was a member of the British Travel Association when it was first started by Mr. Douglas Hacking, who subsequently became Sir Douglas Hacking and then Lord Hacking. No one could have done more for tourism than the late Lord Hacking. He started the association as a sort of private enterprise labour of love and he did a marvellous job. It was suggested, when the Government took an interest in the association and supported it with funds, that, technically, a member of a board might be considered to hold an office of profit under the Crown, which would have meant my disqualification. I should have lost my seat, so I decided to resign.
But I have always thought that M.P.s interested in tourism might have a part to play in the British Tourist Authority. It would be a pity to debar them just because they are M.P.s, because they could offer advantages to the board and to liaison between the boards and this

House. I am not asking for any reinstatement. I did my stint and enjoyed it, but would not want to be a candidate for reinstatement. But we are not talking about personalities, otherwise I am certain that the Minister would not recommend quite a number of our colleagues in this House as members of the authority. But hon. Members could contribute as part-time unpaid workers.
The Clause is permissive. It does not say that the Minister must appoint an M.P., but if in future there was a Member who was very knowledgable about these subjects, the Minister might consider his appointment. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, and I am sure that my colleagues who spoke in Committee are also grateful, for the generous-hearted way in which he has considered this suggestion.

Mr. Peyton: I have my name to Amendment No. 120. Far from having a personal feud against the Minister of State, I am very grateful to him for the way in which he has proposed this Amendment. I accept the spirit of it, and I am grateful for it, because I particularly welcome any sign that Parliament is not being excluded from discussion. Individual M.P.s with far more experience than I in these matters should be able to participate and apply their wisdom. I assure the Minister that it is not my intention, either now or in future, to solicit such an appointment for myself. Nevertheless, I should like to congratulate him on the readiness with which he has met the views expressed on this side of the House and has allowed his own wisdom to triumph over the other prejudices with which he is surrounded.

Mr. John Biffen: My name is also attached to Amendment No. 120, and I should like to congratulate the Government on accepting its spirit. This piece of legislation has ended up with more boards than it started with, and the House may congratulate itself on having secured some toehold in these proliferating institutions.
This is to be welcomed on two counts. First, it makes some further progress in the general proposition that the responsibilities which can best be discharged by Members of Parliament are not confined to whole-time activity within this House. I am therefore delighted that, in


legislation, the possibility is foreseen of M.P.s having extra-Parliamentary activities.
Second, we have seen, in recent years, a great proliferation in the number of boards with some quasi-Governmental function, particularly in the distribution of funds. On many of the most important, Ministers are occasionally represented—this is true of the National Economic Development Council—but it is not true of many that the House has had any chance of independent representation. This is a permissive piece of legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) said, and no one would over-estimate the modest degree of the Amendment. But it is being made in the right direction, and in that spirit I welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

GENERAL FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

Further Amendments made: No. 18, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.

No. 22, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 3, after 'power', insert:
'by virtue of this subsection'.

The Amendment need not detain the House for long because it is another Amendment proposed by the Government in response to a view expressed in Committee. That view was that whereas, rightly or wrongly, the British Tourist Authority was to be responsible for promotion overseas, it was most important that there should be no misunderstanding that its powers would preclude all kinds of organisations from carrying out their own promotion as and when they felt it to be necessary. This would be true, for example, of local authorities some of which have powers under local Acts to incur expenditure on advertising promotion which are not confined to activities in the United Kingdom. It would apply also to transport authorities in the public and private sectors, hotels and other organisations. The object of the Amendment is simply to make the situation doubly clear, and I hope, on those grounds, that it will be acceptable.

Mr. Blaker: I agree with the interpretation of the Minister of State about the purposes of the Amendment. It is made in response to points which my hon. Friends and I made in Committee, and we welcome the proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 147.

Division No. 287.]
AYES
[6.33 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dickens, James


Allaun, Frank (Salfort), E.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dobson, Ray


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Doig, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom


Archer, Peter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunn, James A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunnett, Jack


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Coe, Denis
Edwards, Robert (Bllston)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)




Ellis, John


Barnett, Joel
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ensor, David


Binns, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Blackburn, F.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Faulds, Andrew


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fernyhough, E.


Booth, Albert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Finch, Harold


Boston, Terence
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brooks, Edwin
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)




Ford, Ben
Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence


Forrester, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Fowler, Gerry
Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman


Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Luard, Evan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lubbock, Eric
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rankin, John


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McCann, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macdonald, A. H.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowlands, E.


Hannan, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ryan, John


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Manuel, Archie
Sheldon, Robert


Hazell, Bert
Mapp, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Henig, Stanley
Marquand, David
Slater, Joseph


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Small, William


Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Hooson, Emlyn
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, J. B.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Thornton, Ernest


Hynd, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Murray, Albert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Neal, Harold
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitaker, Ben


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Padley, Walter
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Judd, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Winnick, David


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pardoe, John



Lawson, George
Park, Trevor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Dr. M. S. Miller.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crouch, David
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Awdry, Daniel
Dance, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Hastings, Stephen


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Higgins, Terence L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Doughty, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter



Eden, Sir John
Hunt, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Nigel
Jopling, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Braine, Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Glover, Sir Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)


Chataway, Christopher
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus







Mawby, Ray
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Prior, J. M. L.
Tilney, John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Pym, Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, A. W.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sharples, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Frederick
Woodnutt, Mark


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Speed, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wright, Esmond


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Younger, Hn. George


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Tapsell, Peter



Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. Jasper More and


Peyton, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Anthony Royle.


Pounder, Rafton
Temple, John M.

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 3, line 11, to insert:
(3) In discharging their functions under this section the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of fostering and, in appropriate cases, co-operating with organisations discharging functions corresponding to those of the Boards in relation to particular areas within the countries for which the Boards are respectively responsible; and, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, each of those Boards shall have power to provide such organisations with financial or other assistance.
(4) In discharging its functions under this section each Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters affecting the discharge of those functions.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) The British Travel Association shall, in consultation with the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board, establish machinery to co-ordinate the activities of all four Tourist Boards mentioned in this paragraph on matters affecting Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take Amendment No. 90, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) The British Travel Association, the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall in the interests of economy and efficiency establish common services in appropriate cases and such common services shall be administered by the British Travel Association.

Sir K. Joseph: First, Mr. Speaker, I most warmly thank you for considering favourably our plea to consider these

two Amendments. We are most grateful.
In Committee we took note of the creation of an extra tourist board, the English Tourist Board, but we did not draw—and this was a failure perhaps not only of the Government but of the Opposition and of all hon. Members in Committee—the managerial consequences of having four official bodies concerned with tourism.
Obviously, if the Government appoint, as we hope they will, people of the calibre and sense of the members of the B.T.A. to the new British Tourist Authority and the new or existing tourist boards, the four bodies will get on very well together and there will be no need for any reference in legislation to co-ordination between them. But there is always a chance that men and women of sense and goodwill will not be able to reconcile reasonable differences of opinion, and there is, alas, a chance that the Government will not always succeed in appointing sensible and experienced members to these boards.
We dread the use of these new boards, particularly the British Tourist Authority, for the superannuation of retired public figures. We hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he recognises the importance of placing shrewd, vigorous men and women of enterprise on these bodies.
But, assuming that he does, there still remains the possibility that occasionally two, three, or even four of these bodies may have different opinions. At the moment the Bill is silent on this predicament. We are sure that the Government would not like to have different advice from two or even more of these bodies.
There will be occasions when, with the best will in the world, an argument has been conducted and the differing viewpoints have not been reconciled. Inevitably, the government will then face differing opinions. We want to avoid differing opinions coming to the Government because, due to the presence of stupid people or the rousing of passions, the boards have not sought, and have not been under any statutory constraint to seek, to reconcile their differences. That is why we ask the Government either to accept Amendment No. 89 or to tell us that they will take it away and meet the substance of it by a suitable Amendment in another place.
I have put the view as broadly as I can on the possible emergence of differences of opinion, but co-ordination goes further. Inevitably, there are a number of activities which can only effectively be conducted in harmony by the British Tourist Authority and the three boards. The B.T.A. will normally be looked to for leadership in these common activities.
6.45 p.m.
I will give a few examples. There will be a common preoccupation with having some national system of information for the overseas or the domestic tourist. We have several hundred tourist information bureaux all over the country. It would make sense if at each bureau a common list of national facilities was available on request. There is scope here for co-ordination. Given good will, none of this presents any problem; but in case sometimes there is not good will we feel that there should be a fallback provision in the Bill.
Another example is the availability of foreign-speaking tourist guides for overseas visitors. Here again, there is scope for co-ordination of services by the B.T.A.
There is the whole jungle of potential inconvenience of different signposting arrangements, different grading arrangements, and different treatment for season tickets for tourists from overseas who want, for instance, a pass to all historic houses for a single payment. A mass of detail can be handled sensibly if there is leadership from the B.T.A. and co-operation from the tourist boards, but it can be wrecked by an unwillingness to co-operate.
With this sort of approach in mind, we were comforted by the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in Committee on 25th March this year when he said that the B.T.A.—the British Tourist Authority
is not an overload; it is a co-ordinating body for development within Britain as a whole …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E., 25th March, 1969; c. 152.]
That is fine, that is splendid. That is what we want to see embodied in the Bill. There is no provision for it at the moment, but we will gladly accept the Minister's assurance that he takes the point and will put in what the Government regard as a suitable version of our Amendment.
I have not sought to mention the wide list of areas where co-ordination would make sense. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the scope and the need for co-ordination.
I now turn to Amendment No. 90, which deals with the same area of need, but in this case is addressed to the sense of common services.
I am sure the Government accept that the four tourist bodies will be sensible enough to pool some of their activities, but, again, there is no provision for this in the Bill. The best example is that of research. At the moment the British Travel Association has a staff of, I think, six working on research. I imagine no one contemplates that under the new manifestation the authority should have two people working on research and that each of the new tourist boards should also have two people engaged on this work. If that were to happen, they would each have less scope for intelligent, sustained, marketing and product research than there is at present.
What we have in mind is that men and women of good will will gladly agree to establish certain common services, but that if for any reason, either of personality or of disagreement, they are unwilling so to agree, there should be a statutory provision requiring them to consider having common services. That is the sense of Amendment No. 90.
I ought to give a few more examples of common services which might make sense. The tourist bodies will together be very large users of films, posters, booklets, and other public relations material. They are likely to get better staff for


these services, just as they are likely to get better staff for research, if they can offer a single centre for these activities rather than having a number of dispersed centres.
Then there is the whole question of the Holidays in Britain campaign which the board has recently been encouraged by the Government to carry out. The effectiveness of this is likely to be the greater if it is at least initiated, and to some extent fertilised, by one directing set of minds.
Without going into a large number of examples, I hope that I have said enough to invite my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite to press the Minister, if he is at all unwilling, to meet the substance of these Amendments, even if the words themselves are not acceptable.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I intervene only to underline, to dot the i's and to cross the t's of one or two of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
I start with Amendment No. 90, which refers to common services which are necessary in the interests of efficiency. I said that I wished to dot the i's and cross the t's because I wish to take the argument a little further down the path. The authority will be the controlling authority. It will feed information to the English, Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards, which may find that in the interests of efficiency it would be best if many of their activities were co-ordinated.
One of the major things which are necessary in the next year or two for the benefit of this country is the introduction of efficient tour operation for foreigners coming to this country. Very little has been done about this so far. We are peculiarly adept at sending British people overseas with a flood of extremely effective advertising and promotion. It is very difficult to counter this by bringing an equivalent number of overseas travellers to this country by equally efficient operation.
With the arrival of the jumbo jets it will be necessary for the new authority to co-ordinate effective tour operation within the four countries. Some form of co-ordination of air travel is necessary.

Air fares are much too high. This means that we must take down the trousers of the I.A.T.A. for a start. We must ensure that there are cheaper tours for foreigners coming to this country.
Second, it will be the responsibility of the authority to co-ordinate rail travel throughout the United Kingdom. For this purpose it will no doubt have the closest possible relationship with British Railways. Third, it is necessary that all the printing should be done through one principal source. It is absurd to think of having different printers in different parts of the country, because the great majority of the publications will be of general national interest. It will be far better if the publications are dealt with at a central office, rather than country by country. Advertising has an extremely important part to play, and this, too, can be provided as a common service.
It is obvious that the authority will need the right kind of people for research. There are now several university chairs for tourist research. This should be further developed and encouraged, and the result will be far more effective if in this respect the four boards of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are under the umbrella of the British Tourist Authority.
As I see it, in the interests of efficiency the common services should be dealt with at the centre, but there should be consultation with each of the boards with regard to its own country.
That being established, what does the word "co-ordination" really mean? It is a polite way of asking who is to make the effective decision when there is a difference of opinion. It is important that the over-riding authority, the British Tourist Authority, should have the residual power by its vote to make that decision. By the structure we set up it may have that power, but that is not clear at the moment. It would be better to make it plain that specific duties are enjoined on the authority to take that decision in the final analysis, and further to enjoin on it the paramount duty, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to ensure that, wherever possible, there are common services.
Our most essential need to begin with will not be particularly attractive to the regions. It is of paramount importance to this country that at the earliest possible date we should have a major international


conference centre in London. I understand that this will come about with the assistance of the G.L.C. when the Government can enter into suitable financial arrangements. With it will come the flow of big international conferences, and with them will come the opening up of a really new vista of tourism.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend has asked. I hope, too, that the matters to which I have referred will be taken careful heed of and brought into effect.

Mr. Pardoe: These Amendments are made necessary by what I can only term the madness which took place in Committee. When I re-read that part of the Committee proceedings which added the English Tourist Board to this juggernaut, I could hardly believe my eyes. I was shocked to find the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) cheering loudly:
This is a great day. It is a terrific time for tourism in England …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 18th March, 1969; c. 52.]
I almost expected the hon. Gentleman to table an Amendment saying that all the deliberations of the English Tourist Board should be conducted in Anglo-Saxon. My comments scribbled in the margin of the hon. Gentleman's speech were mostly in Anglo-Saxon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will not be out of order if he comes to the Amendment.

Mr. Pardoe: No, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that these Amendments are made necessary partly because of the creation of the English Tourist Board, which has complicated the whole problem of diversified functions within the industry. In Clause 2 we see:
It shall be the function of the British Travel Association …(b) to encourage the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Great Britain; and the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall have the like functions.…
It is true that that is qualified later on, but the whole problem which these Amendments try to remedy is that of ensuring that we do not have a massive wastage between the four separate organisations.
7.0 p.m.
I am only sorry, Mr. Speaker, that in your wisdom you did not see fit to call my own Amendment. As it appeared on the Notice Paper originally, I appreciate that it made nonsense. However, it was not my fault but that of the Table Office, as I think you are aware. My proposals were to divide this and go some of the way with the hon. and learned Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who spoke about the organisation of functions and services. I wanted to ensure that the B.T.A. was the overseas agency for selling Britain abroad and that it would act as an agency for the three boards. Unfortunately, that is not to be.
I want to make one point about the problem of research facilities. I do not think that I have to declare an interest here—

Mr. Rees-Davies: For the record, the position is that there is no reason why the authority should not continue to be the overseas agency for all the boards. Yesterday, in reply in an intervention by another Liberal hon. Member, the Minister indicated that it was hoped to see it continue to do so.

Mr. Pardoe: I accept that, and the speech of the hon. Gentleman earlier let the cat out of the bag, because he is arguing for a more centralised structure than the wording of the Bill appears to indicate. His speech was largely one for a single central authority, and to a great extent I agree with him.
Turning to the problem of research, I have some experience in that I have myself conducted negotiations with the British Travel Association about research into wider holiday travel in this country. I have found a great deal of expertise in that body. It would be tragic to find oneself having to negotiate with four different bodies. It is important to have one research organisation carrying out the great bulk of research into the future of travel.
I must issue a word of warning. To my way of thinking, it is inevitable that empire building will occur in all four bodies. Whoever is in charge of each of them will want to create his own little research department, and each research manager will want to ensure that his department is large enough to make him


feel important. I fear that this will happen, and that we shall end up with more people doing less good work.
To sum up, while the Bill would be better if it incorporated these Amendments, it is only making the best of a bad job.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am glad to have an opportunity to support these two Amendments. A good case has been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the commonsense business advantages of co-ordinating the activities and establishing common services for these various bodies. We have heard about the advantages of co-ordinating and making common services in such matters as printing, publicity, advertising and research. However, there is another reason why it is important, and I hope that we shall hear later that the Government intend to accept these wto Amendments.
Many people are extremely suspicious about the setting up of what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has called "this great juggernaut". On Second Reading I used some rude words to describe the aims of the Bill in setting up yet another tier of bureaucracy, rather like a mazipan cake.
The Minister must accept that there is great disquiet, not only in this House but outside in areas where there is a large tourist industry, about the effects of this Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, these four bodies are set up. We are discussing whether they co-ordinate their activities and whether they unify some of their services. It is about that that the hon. Gentleman must speak.

Mr. Jopling: That is exactly my point. If it is seen that Parliament has laid it down that these bodies should establish machinery to co-ordinate their activities and set up common services, there will be a better atmosphere for these organisations to work in for the future. At the moment, there is disquiet and mistrust of these organisations. If it can be seen that Parliament has said specifically what is contained in these two Amendments, it will do a good deal, though perhaps not as much as we would like, to improve the general public feeling about the creation of these four new organisations.
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendments. Above all, I hope that the Minister will not say at the end of the debate that he feels sure that, in the natural course of events, these organisations will do as we have asked. We have heard Ministers say that before, and we have seen bureaucracy expanding in a way which would make Professor Parkinson proud. It is no good the Minister saying that. Parliament should tell these organisations that these economical methods ought to be employed. We feel sure that they will save money in the long run.
I would point out to the Minister that the words "in appropriate cases" are included in Amendment No. 90. We are not trying to tie down these organisations and oblige them to establish common services which may be against their interests. We do not want to tie their hands unduly. However, it will not be good enough for the Minister to say that he thinks that there will be co-ordination in the natural course of events. At this stage, Parliament should be saying what ought to happen. I hope that the Minister will not hesitate to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Gower: As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we have these separate bodies, with the main authority and the respective boards. It should be our ambition to ensure that each of them performs the functions which were amply described during our debates in Committee. There was a good deal of agreement that the main business of the authority should be to promote overseas an increased number of foreign visitors to this country, and that the business of the separate boards for England, Scotland and Wales should be more detailed and much the same sort of task as has been performed in Scotland and Wales in recent years.
If the need for these Amendments has been emphasised, it is because of the wording of the Bill, which describes in Clause 2(1) the function of the main body and goes on to say that
… the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall have the like functions …".
This seems to represent a duplication of functions. I agreed with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) to that extent, although I did not agree with


some of his other observations, since the provision of a body of this kind for England must be beneficial.
I do not want the authority to diminish the responsibilities of the separate boards. Consider, for example publicity. The Welsh and Scottish boards have been doing magnificent publicity work, and I hope that this will continue. Their incentive to do this work will, I hope, be greater than that of the authority, since it is their function to put over the attractions of their areas. I hope that the authority will not be diverted into this function but will deal with the larger issues, such as increasing the volume of tourist traffic to the British Isles and, of course, persuading more British people to remain in this country for their holidays. Along with that goes the need to improve facilities here.
The Amendment would clear up much of the uncertainty that exists. It would make for better liaison and co-ordination. Despite the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), we know what we mean by "co-ordination", and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. William Rodgers: I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in view of the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on Second Reading. On that occasion, when stressing the fact that Scottish and Welsh boards were provided for in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that for the same reason an English board should have the same facilities. It has long been known that Devon and Cornwall look on tourism in different ways. It is now clear that the two hon. Members who represent that area and to whom I referred also look on the subject in different ways.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) had reservations about the extension of bureaucracy under the Bill. Although he accepted that there should be an English Board—in logic, there must be—he was clear in expressing opposition to any extension of bureaucracy in this sphere. I reiterated that opposition.

Mr. Rodgers: I assume that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 18 sittings we had in Committee. He will know the views which were expressed on both sides and the statement by the Government that we did not want to see a proliferation of bureaucracy. That remains our view.
Despite the intervention of the hon. Gentleman, it is clear that he and his right hon. Friend are out of step. This out-of-stepness does not exceed that of their right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who spoke against omitting subsection (3) of Clause 2 yesterday and voted for omitting it today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not co-ordinating the opinions of hon. Members.

Mr. Rodgers: That would be a difficult task in this case, Mr. Speaker.
Having decided to set up an English board, I considered in Committee what I should say about how the board might work in conjunction with the authority. At that stage I had it in mind to suggest that there should be a co-ordination of services. I admit that it was even in my mind to suggest that the English board should be housed in the same building as the B.T.A. I decided, however, that it would be a brave man who would suggest that in a Committee which was so militant in favour of the independence of the three boards. I thought that I should be swimming against the tide of views in Committee if I made that suggestion. I therefore did not suggest it.
I am therefore surprised to note today that the pendulum has swung back and that now anxiety is that England, Scotland and Wales should not be too independent with the result that there might be a lack of co-ordination and a lack of sharing of common services.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. William Edwards: I urge my hon. Friend not to take seriously the views of the Liberal Party on this matter because no one in Wales or Scotland does.

Mr. Rodgers: I had finished dealing with the Liberal Party some minutes ago. However, I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising a point which is no doubt apparent to the House.
I hope that I shall not disappoint the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who thought that I would reply by saying that everything would turn out nicely in the end. However, there is some merit in approaching this matter in a flexible way and relying on good sense to prevail. If we are to act in the spirit of the comments of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and not create more bureaucracy, we must be cautious about creating unnecessary statutory duties, which is precisely what the Amendment would achieve.
We should also be cautious in laying down rules for management covering the organisations which we set up. We have our rôle here. We decide the strategy and make the policy which is embodied in legislation. Do not let us then try to wear a different hat and run, in a day-to-day sense, the organisations which we set up. If we try to do this we shall have the worst of all worlds and not obtain the people with the ability we need.
Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), I pay tribute not only to Lord Geddes and the board of the B.T.A. but to all those who work for it. They have been professionals in the best sense and have done a first-rate job. I do not want to bind those who may find themselves working in future for the boards or the authority in the way that some hon. Members have suggested. We should not make statutory provision for the establishment of machinery for the co-ordination or sharing of common services.
This discussion has served a useful purpose. I agree that we must make sure that each board and the authority does not go off on its own tack and fail to share services which are in common. I would not exclude the possibility of the boards doing some research, but I see the authority as the essential body where research will be done. This will be essential, particularly in promotion matters.
I urge hon. Members to bear in mind Part II of the Bill and its important provisions for hotel development. I agree with the views expressed in Committee on this issue; that there will be need for the boards to talk together and to make sure that they approach their

several but common statutory responsibilities in the same sort of way. If this is not done, anomalies will arise.
I have shown that we want close co-ordination between the boards. The authority can, perhaps, play some part in this. We want to see a sharing of some services, and I am glad that the view that this might be done has emanated from hon. Gentlemen opposite because there is now unanimity on this issue, and I therefore feel free to admit what I did not feel free to admit in Committee.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East say that he wanted to see co-ordination and that he did not want the B.T.A. to be an overlord. That, too, is a sentiment which I endorse. I hope that the new authority will, when established, co-operate closely at all levels with the boards, that the boards will work together and that there will be no useless duplication of activity and, as a result, no wasteful duplication of personnel.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

GENERAL SCHEMES OF ASSISTANCE FOR TOURIST PROJECTS

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we may consider the following Amendments: No. 30, in line 28, after 'Board', insert:
'and such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate'.
No. 34, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'and'.
No. 35, in line 11, at end insert:
'and such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate'.
No. 36, in line 18, at end insert:
(7) Any such draft shall be accompanied by a statement indicating what persons and organisations have been consulted under the provisions of subsections (1) to (5), as the case may be, of this section.


No. 104, in line 18, at end insert:
(7) Before introducing any scheme the British Tourist Authority must advertise its intentions and ascertain the views of persons likely to be affected by the proposals.

Sir J. Gilmour: These Amendments fall into three groups. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek to show that not only main boards but the rest shall consult
with such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate.
The second group, Amendments Nos. 34 and 35, seek to do the same when there is a variation of any scheme proposed by the British Travel Association. Amendment No. 36 seeks to add a separate subsection (7) which would make certain that when we are considering an Order laid before the House we have the information as to what measure of consultation there may have been.
A question which arises out of what the Minister of State said in reply to the last debate is whether we are seeking in this Amendment to put too much of a limit on the powers of the B.T.A. and the three national tourist boards. I have not so much in mind consultations with the sort of associations wholly within the tourist industry with which one believes the B.T.A. officials would always be in touch, but in the development of tourism there is no doubt that as our tourist potential gets bigger and we bring more people to this country the need for greater access to the countryside, access to water, playing areas and mountains will make a continuing pressure.
It is essential that there should be proper consultation with the Countryside Commissions, in Scotland with the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and with the new and enlarged county authorities of the future. The whole time we shall be encroaching on the countryside. Unfortunately, there will be a conflict of interest between the farming and the land-owning community with expansion of the tourist trade. There is need to ensure this measure of consultation and co-operation. It may be that a great deal of this can be done at the levels of the English, Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards, but tourism will grow only with the good will of the communities in which tourists live, move and have their being. I therefore hope that

the Minister of State will see fit to accept this group of Amendments.

Mr. William Rodgers: Perhaps at this stage it may be right simply to comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments he expressed, which are in keeping with Amendments we have already made to the Bill providing for consultation. I should, however, point out that Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 as they stand are unnecessary since the authority will already have the power to consult as widely as it thinks appropriate. It will be able to do precisely what the hon. Member asks, and I think it will wish to do so.
In Committee at almost every stage we discussed at length the need for consultation. I made clear that we saw the authority as having powers for consulting very widely both on a regional basis and with the industry as a whole. We did not imagine that it would make a decision about a scheme or project, nor eventually make proposals about Orders in Council to provide for consideration under Part III of the Bill, without the widest consultation. This is the case, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that these Amendments are not necessary and not to press them.

Mr. Pardoe: My Amendment, No. 104, is on a rather different point. It is concerned with advertising intentions and with ensuring that the views of persons likely to be affected by these proposals shall be ascertained. That seems to be good planning, and I hope that the normal laws and regulations of good planning will apply to these schemes.
All sorts of schemes could be envisaged under this Clause. It refers to projects which in the opinion of the authority will provide or improve tourist facilities and amenities in Great Britain. I am not sure what connection the House may think there is between sewerage and tourism, but the provision of sewerage schemes can improve tourism in the West Country and allow development to take place there. It is absolutely essential that the British Tourist Authority or individual boards should advertise their intentions widely and ascertain the views of persons likely to be affected by their proposals. I hope that they will automatically consult the local authorities in


the areas concerned, because obviously local authorities in holiday areas are absolutely bound up with tourist enterprises.
I am also extremely concerned about individuals who may be living near a development. Their property may be substantially affected in value, their view may be completely destroyed and the whole of the amenities of the area may be shattered. Schemes such as the provision of car parks or ski lifts can affect normal amenities and the environment. Individuals affected by such schemes ought to know well in advance that the schemes are planned so that they may lodge objections in the proper manner.

Mr. Peter Emery: In replying, the Minister of State missed the point of this Amendment. I wonder if he can address himself to a specific aspect which I shall put to him. Of course we realise that the authority has to consult those bodies listed in the Clause before producing a scheme. Those bodies are the three boards. We also realise that the authority will be given ability to consult other people. The Amendment seeks to lay an obligation on the authority to consult
such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate.
The reason for this is a fear—which was expressed by a number of hon. Members, including myself, in Committee—that while statutory bodies may have power to consult, they do not always do so. In relation to action resulting from the Aberfan Inquiry the Government were urged that before legislation was introduced they should consult certain people. However, they did not do so until the middle of the Committee stage on the relevant Bill.
7.30 p.m.
We believe that the Amendment would improve the Bill by providing that before general schemes of assistance to tourism were introduced the authority had to carry out consultations with bodies other than the national tourist boards. The authority may consult the Countryside Commission and interests connected with camping and seaside resorts. We believe that it would be wrong for the authority not to carry out that consultation.
As the Bill stands, it would be possible for the authority to introduce a

scheme without having carried out consultation of the type spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Sir J. Gilmour). There is nothing political about this. The only argument which the Government can advance is that this would tie the hands of the authority. This is not our intention. The wording is general—
such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate".
The power would rest entirely with the authority to decide whom it considered to be appropriate. We would make it mandatory on the authority to ensure that consultation took place with authorities other than the national tourist boards.

Mr. William Rodgers: I fully appreciated the considerations which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) had in mind. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) put his finger on the point by saying that the question of who should be consulted is left to the authority's discretion in the Amendments. Because this is true, the Amendments, though imposing a requirement to consult, do not amount to more than a power, because the authorities to be consulted are not specified.
As I said before, the Amendment as drafted, because it is restrictive in the way that the hon. Member for Honiton said was intended, so as to allow the maximum of discretion, would not impose a positive requirement. All the safeguards in the Bill, given in particular the need for approval by Parliament, are safeguards of the type which will ensure that consultation is adequate.
This is also the answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who may not have wholly grasped the circumstances in which a scheme would come forward. By the time the authority or any of the boards is in a position to introduce any scheme under the Clause, it will long have been public knowledge because of the consultations and the Order-making procedure which will have been followed. In all the circumstances, although I understand and endorse the continuing anxiety that there should be proper consultation, these Amendments would add nothing to the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

EXECUTION OF PARTICULAR TOURIST PROJECTS

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'loan' to 'or' in line 32.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we discuss the following Amendments:
Amendment No. 134, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'loan' to 'or' in line 32.
Amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 31, after 'acquiring', insert:
'at current market price or at a fair independent valuation'.
Amendment No. 39, in page 4, line 40, leave out from 'not' to end of paragraph (4) and insert:
'acquire shares or stock in any company incorporated in Great Britain'.
Amendment No. 74, in page 17, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Emery: We come now to the method by which the Government can conduct their financing to assist tourism generally. The basis is that it shall be done by grants and loans. The Government have, as so often happens, slipped into the Bill the possibility, with a Socialist Administration, of this being carried forward by the Government acquiring shares or stocks in a company which would participate in a tourist-promoting project. We on this side believe that that is not in the best interests either of tourism or of the country generally. We believe that the loan and grant procedure should be accepted.
We believe, too, that this should not be the only method by which assistance to tourism should be financed. The market is still an acceptable method. If a project is financially viable, it should not have to rest with the Government to carry forward the financing, but ordinary business judgments should encourage such a scheme to go forward.
However, we accept that some schemes may not be able to attract private finance. We do not accept that, if the Government back tourist projects, they should acquire a shareholding in the project. Such an operation could be described as backdoor nationalisation. This is a political

factor. Although most of our proceedings in Committee did not involve a division on politics or political judgment, the Minister of State must realise that this accusation can be laid against him with the Bill as it stands.
We do not believe that these are the type of projects, being in many cases highly risk-bearing projects, in which the Government would want to hold shares or stock. This is the type of business in which it is not really the responsibility of Government to hold shares or stock. Specialist commercial judgment is essential, and considerable risks are likely to be involved. Therefore, it would be absolutely wrong for the Government to be able to take up shares or stock, as the Bill now gives them power to do.
Amendment No. 38 is perhaps a fallback position. Whilst we do not like subsection (2) we must accept the overwhelming power of the Government in the Division Lobbies. They were not always able to maintain this power in Committee, but they can usually do so on the Floor of the House. Therefore, we realise that it is possible that we shall not be able to persuade the House to accept the Amendment No. 37. If that is the case I very much hope that the Government will give us Amendment No. 38, which attempts to set a current market price or fair independent valuation on the stock that might be acquired. It is a proper protection for both the Government and anybody disposing of shares to add to the Bill a phrase which allows the Government to obtain what they want only
… by subscribing for or otherwise acquiring at current market price or at a fair independent valuation shares or stocks …
We cannot see any reason why the Government would not want to ensure that they were getting proper value for money in any acquisition, and were not also attempting to obtain a special position by pressing down the value of any holding they might acquire. Therefore, the requirement of a current market price or fair independent valuation is a reasonable and proper addition to the Bill.
This addition to grants and loans is completely unnecessary. We believe that it is done purely for political reasons. This is the one place where politics has come into the Bill. It is a pity, and we wish that the Government would have the good sense to delete it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: In supporting everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has just said I should like to apologise to my hon. and right hon. Friends on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself who put down Amendment No. 134 for the fact that it is identical with the Amendment we are now discussing. My only excuse is that owing to the fragmented state of the Order Paper it is sometimes difficult to realise what Amendments have already been put down.
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The part of the Clause with which we are concerned is very objectionable, and I hope that we shall have a rather more satisfactory reply from the Government than we had by way of explanation so far to some of the more offensive sections of the Bill.
We are told:
A Tourist Board shall have power—
(a) in accordance with arrangements approved by the relevant Minister and the Treasury, to give financial assistance …
This can be given by means of the board's acquiring shares. I do not wish to be offensive to anybody, but I feel obliged to say in the public interest that the relevant Ministers and the Treasury seem to have an almost unerring sense for selecting sure-fire losers and investing public money in things which cannot possibly do very well. It is most unlikely that really winning projects would be prepared to sell a large part of their equity to the Government. Therefore, I feel that the boards, unleashing their new-found enthusiasm for their public duties, may well be tempted, and the Treasury with them, to invest their money in things that they should never go into, and which in the end will prove to be sources of loss and failure.
I have always felt that if only one could persuade the Government to lend one £5 to dig a hole in the road for no particular purpose it would be very easy to oblige them thereafter to lend one £500,000 before they finally decided there was no purpose whatever in digging the original hole. It takes a long time before a Government are prepared to lose face by admitting they were wrong and writing off their original investment.
The tourist industry is highly speculative and needs people who are prepared

to risk a good deal to go into it. I am all for giving them the maximum of encouragement, but I do not believe that it is right in any way that we should contemplate the injection of public money in the form of equity capital. I look askance at loans and grants, but to me the idea of equity capital is totally wrong.
I very much hope that the Government will not think that we are just prosecuting a bigoted and party view here. Besides agreeing entirely with everything my hon. Friend said, I applaud the rather more modest alternative he has expounded by way of the accompanying Amendment. But I would much rather stick on the first one and register the fact that we on this side of the House take rooted objection to the Government's proposal.

Sir C. Taylor: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) for not being here to move the Amendment as I had promised. I went out to have a word with a constituent who sat through all 18 sittings of our Committee and the proceedings yesterday until the early hours of this morning, and who has been sitting through today's proceedings and is determined to see them out. I did not realise that the previous group of Amendments would fall so quickly.
These Clauses were not discussed very fully in Committee. We feel that the B.T.A.—I hate the name "British Tourist Authority" so I shall go on using the initials—should not purchase shares in businesses, because this Bill is primarily designed for grants and loans. Grants are money given away; loans are presumably for a short term. Surely the B.T.A. is not supposed to tie up taxpayers' money in what may be long-term proceedings. They may involve very long-term investments. The B.T.A. should not engage in this sort of transaction.
For example, the B.T.A. may be left if it indulges in this sort of thing, with a large minority shareholding which it cannot get rid of because the concern has become a white elephant. It might and itself, as people do sometimes when they invest as a minority shareholder, that the only way to get its money back


is to become the majority shareholder—and again it still may be a white elephant. We do not believe that this is part of the functions of the B.T.A.
If we succeed with Amendment No. 37, we shall not need Amendment No. 38. But if we do not, then Amendment No. 38 is concerned that investment by the B.T.A. in a company should be at the current market price or at a full independent valuation. If the B.T.A. is permitted to make an investment in a company which sells its shares to the B.T.A. under duress, it would be bad for the seller. For instance, a hotel keeper, not knowing where he is going to get sufficient money to carry on, receives help from the B.T.A. on condition that it takes some shares in his concern. That is really a forced sale and the shares may be bought too cheaply. On the other hand, if it is not a forced sale under duress, the B.T.A. may be so led astray by the attractiveness of the operation that it pays too much of the taxpayers' money for the shares.
Both these courses are undesirable. The first might be very bad for the seller and the other might be very bad for the taxpayer, and I cannot understand why the Minister of State would not accept the principle of the current market price, if quoted on the stock market, or a fair independent valuation.
I turn now to Amendment No. 39. If shares in a company are required by the B.T.A. then, if those shares are eventually resold, they should be offered back to the original vendor first, who, after all, may have found himself obliged to sell the shares to the B.T.A. in the first place because he could not get money from other sources. They should not be sold perhaps to a competitor or, if on the open market, eventually find their way to a competitor. For example, if they were sold on the open market, a merchant banker representing the interests of a large interested group might say, "I should like these shares and then I will offer them to the group." The original vendor would then find himself in an invidious position. Having agreed in good faith to the B.T.A. taking shares in his business, at some later date he might see them possibly falling into the hands of a competitor rather than being offered back to him at a fair price.
The Amendments are inter-linked. If we are fortunate in being successful with Amendment No. 37 and the Minister gives way to us on it, probably the other two will not have to be proceeded with.

Mr. Pardoe: I do not have any great principal objection to the proposal that the Government are making in this Clause and therefore I cannot support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) distinguished between grants and loans, saying that grants do not have to be paid back. There is a provision in the Bill referring specifically to the repayment of grants.

Sir C. Taylor: That is true. We debated it fully in Committee and received certain assurances. I did not want to delay the House on that point.

Mr. Pardoe: I drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to it to show that, while he is not quite right in making a clear distinction between grants and loans, I do not see the clear distinction which the Opposition are trying to draw here between grants, loans, and equity stake. I am not sure that the Government should be precluded from taking an equity stake in certain very large projects. Society ought to have a share in the profits of an enterprise if it invests in it. I emphasise "profits" because all too often, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out, society tends to get a share of the loss. If he is right in saying that the Government schould not take shares in any project which will make a loss, he is also right in saying that the Government should not make a loan or grant to a project which is going to make a loss.
If Newquay Urban District Council were to take a share in the equity of a new indoor swimming pool or a new conference hall, I, on behalf, I am sure, of the whole tourist and travel industry of Newquay, would welcome that move. I would welcome any move which got us an indoor swimming pool or conference hall. So I do not see the great distinction which the Opposition are trying to draw here.
Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what equity he envisages the board taking. The Bill leaves the matter open as drafted. Are the Government thinking in terms of 51 per cent. or 60 per cent. or even of only 20 per cent.—as for instance, a grant might be?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) very reasonably queried whether it was an acceptable proposition that where public funds are being committed there should be a public stake in the equity, possibly a public director on the board. I would not dissent from his observations. This Amendment removes from the Clause the consummation of financial commitments. If loans and grants are to be extended on a substantial scale, then the logic of the situation would require some participating share in the equity and some representation on the board of management. By moving the Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is attempting to de-fuse the financial implications of a good deal of the Bill. In that sense I am delighted to accept his proposition. I trust it will be put to the vote and I shall march through the Lobbies in support of my hon. Friends—I nearly always do.
There are three small subsidiary points about the Amendment I want to consider. I will relate them to the almost contemporary circumstances of some other aspects of Government. The first is that we know that any commitments in the form of shares, presumably booked from the National Loans Fund, is a commitment which now has to be matched by taxation. That is clear from a reading of the Letter of Intent; it is clear from the monetary policy now being pursued. Therefore, what the Clause invites the electors of Oswestry to do is to become captive shareholders by virtue of their position as taxpayers. What the Amendment seeks to do is to give them the option to be free men and free shareholders.
My second observation is to do with the other precedents we have of Government involvement in equity which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North have said, are not a happy augury. We debate this under the shadow of decisions on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. There is an example of an enterprise which has attracted Government equity. With that experience in mind I am delighted that there is also a second Amendment relating to the valuation of any shares. I say this not so much out of a protective sense for the private interests

affected, but out of concern for the taxpayers putting up the money.
My third point is that once we have a hotel industry with shareholdings, be they minority or otherwise, held by the State or by some public body, then almost inevitably this will invite the almost insatiable appetite of Mr. Charles Villiers of the I.R.C. The next thing we will find is that there will be a rationalisation scheme for the hotel industry. If it can deal with bacon-curing what can it not deal with? So we will find that innocently, we have countenanced a set of proceedings the consequences of which would truly frighten us. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton upon moving the Amendment, and I am delighted to feel that this fight is taking place on an issue of substance.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) I have great pleasure in supporting this intelligent and obviously much-needed Amendment. I cannot imagine why my Front Bench is supporting the principle of this Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Amendment. We are not discussing the principle of the Clause.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall be at pains to remain carefully within the rules of order. I put my name to Amendment No. 134, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), because I do not think that it is the business of any public board to be buying up equities in a private company, a hotel or anything else. I do not understand why my own Front Bench is not ardently espousing this Amendment.

Hon. Members: It is.

Mr. Griffiths: Splendid. In that case I apologise to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend. I drafted and put down this Amendment which my hon. Friend was good enough to support. I have already explained to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I did so at a time when due to the fragmentary state of the Order Paper, I was unaware


that they had tabled an identical Amendment.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased and relieved to hear that. Virtue is indeed triumphant on the Opposition Front Bench. May I, with renewed vigour and confidence, support the Amendment in the knowledge that we are marching together as a united party to sustain it.
I support the Amendment for three reasons. First, because we now know from experience that public appointees sent into the board rooms of private companies interfere with the proper management of those companies, frequently beyond the number of shares they represent, because it is inevitably supposed that the man representing the Government or public interest, sitting in however low a chair at the table, has some special knowledge or power deriving from his position.
It is a common experience that those other directors tend to look to the Government-appointed director to see which way he will vote and express himself on a point of policy. That is wholly wrong. The object of a board ought to be to seek to make a profit for its company. Far too frequently Government directors are more concerned not with the profitability of a company, but with representing the point of view of the Government or the public board which has appointed them. That point of view does not always coincide with the needs of the company to make a profit here and now.

Mr. William Rodgers: Would the hon. Gentleman give one or two brief examples of what he has in mind, of public directors in private companies behaving in the fashion which he has suggested?

Mr. Griffiths: I am putting to the Minister a general proposition. If I had the time I should be delighted to document what I am saying, by reference to the affairs of a number of companies. I am thinking of the activities of some of the oil companies—I go no further than that—on matters of international policy, which I should be happy to document at some length if the Minister wished me to do so. However, my general point is, I think, sufficient.
The interests of directors appointed by shareholders to make a profit for the

firm are not always the same, unhappily, as the interests of public directors who are bound to reflect the policies of the Government or State board by which they were appointed. Often they interfere in a fashion which is not helpful to the activities of the company. Their objectives are frequently different. They are bound by what Ministers say in this place, and any director who is bound hook, line and sinker by the statements of right hon. and hon. Members opposite will, by definition, not be in a position to serve the interests of shareholders as intelligently as other directors who are not so bound.
I have doubts about the simple competence of directors appointed from State boards and the public sector. The great advantage of a private director is that often his own money is involved. Therefore, he is concerned to ensure that the company is managed efficiently and that a profit is made. There is a very considerable difference between such a director and a director who has been provided, as can happen, with a job as one of the boys. I support the Amendment on the point of principle, too.
I deal with the most interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry. He said that he thought that it was perhaps a logical extension of the principle that public money should be lent to private companies that they should want some part of the equity and representation on the board. No doubt it is a logical extension, but I am not sure that it is invariably the case. For example, most private banks lend money at risk to private companies, but they do not insist on taking up the equity or on having membership on the board, because they act on a basis of trust and profitability.

Mr. Pardoe: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "private banks". A very large number of finance houses and merchant banks are doing just that and are putting their own nominees on the board.

Mr. Griffiths: That is up to them; they must make their own commercial judgment. However, it is not necessarily a logical extension of the principle. Therefore, I would not support the Clause on the ground that it is a logical extension of the lending of public money. On the


contrary, I prefer the Amendment simply because it is enough that a loan is made. It is not necessary to extend the principle to taking up the equity and membership of the board of the company.
There is no doubt that the Amendment would prevent three things which we on this side of the House believe should be prevented. First, it would prevent a further proliferation in jobs to be virtually passed out by State boards. We on this side of the House are pledged when we become the Government to stop the proliferation of jobs provided by agencies of this kind. Secondly, the Amendment would prevent a certain increase in Government interference in the activities of private companies. Again, we are pledged to reduce such Government interference. In a word, it is—and I realise that this is a cliché, but it is a good one—a form of back-door nationalisation. The Bill is full of back-door nationalisation, but I should be out of order if I were to deal with that.
By our Amendment, we would resist these wholly bad tendencies which are widespread in our country. I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of the arguments put to him, withdraw his objections and accept the very sensible Amendment so unitedly supported on this side of the House.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Jopling: I should like to say why I am most unhappy about the part of subsection (2) which allows the board to take up shares.
Many hotels in my constituency are owned, not by companies incorporated in Great Britain, but by private people. One problem which I can foresee arising is that the board will be tempted to advance money to a company rather than to a private individual or family business. There may be attractions in lending money to a company rather than to an individual. One can easily cite examples of that. There may be a greater possibility of profit from a company. The books and accounts of a company may be more up to date and better put together than those of a business controlled by an individual or family.
If subsection (2) is not amended, I can visualise constituents of mine who run small family businesses coming to me and saying, "We cannot get any money under

the Bill as the board is anxious to lend money only to companies because it can take up shares". This subsection could become the big man's charter, the company's charter. It might well act against the small family hotels which are in such profusion in my constituency.
Although I am not happy about giving money away in these circumstances, as I said on Second Reading, if the Government are determined to give away money, I am the last person in the world to deny it to my constituents. But if money is to be scattered about—and I am very dubious about it—we should not create a situation in which the body giving or lending the money is tempted to give it or lend it to the big organisation rather than the small individual or family hotel business.
For that reason, which could bring the whole organisation into disrepute and act against the small man who is the backbone of the tourist industry, I support the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. William Rodgers: I hope that I shall be popular with the Opposition as a result of what I am about to say. I think that my remarks will enable them to go through the Lobby united and cheerful, as I am sure they would choose. I have virtually no sympathy with what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I except from that the notable contribution of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), which was shrewd in every respect. I wished at the time that he could have spoken at greater length, because his was a helpful speech. It distresses me to see hon. Gentlemen who have approached the Bill in an open and honest way now becoming doctrinaire and narrow in their approach. I suppose that it had to happen some time and I therefore shall not go away with too great a sense of grievance.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) made a typically robust speech. He is consistent in his view of what Government intervention is proper. I shall be interested to see his reaction when, looking some time ahead, the I.R.C. is still going about its way doing useful work. He will still be complaining about it.
Before you declare me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I go on to say that I was most impressed by the arguments


of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). With respect, I thought that they were powerful: he thought the danger was that the board would back what he called "sure fire losers". He went on to say that the danger lay in the Government or the boards taking highly speculative risks and making inappropriate gestures. I have some sympathy for this point of view. There are circumstances in which the Government, on investing capital, hope that things will turn out better than objective criteria would lead others to believe that they will. In that sense he has a point.
If we looked at the Clause in a quiet and reasonable way and related it to the projects which we have in mind, there would be more widespread support for it. There are certain circumstances, which we discussed briefly in Committee, in which the availability of equity capital might make a difference. I was asked by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North what share I had in mind. I have no particular share in mind but, broadly speaking, we would think of a minority shareholding, essentially as an investment of public money to get a worthwhile project off the ground.
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) clearly understood the provisions of the Clause. There is no question of diverting money which would be available to hotels as loans and grants. This is a provision by which, given all the safeguards of the Bill, some equity capital might become available for projects which would be of great interest to the locality in which they took place. One can imagine many circumstances in which a project is almost off the ground but not quite.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested, that, if the risk is not too great, private investors should come forward. But private investors are sometimes cautious. The board might decide that an injection of capital would get a project off the ground, and this minority shareholding would bring great benefits to the area. The beneficiaries would be not only those who invested, but small hoteliers as well.
These may be exceptional circumstances. I do not imagine that this will often happen, but it could happen sometimes to the general benefit and in

circumstances which would be acceptable to all, save those who would deny it on doctrinaire grounds.

Mr. Peyton: The Minister has said that there are times when private investors will be cautious. In what circumstances can it be justifiable for a Government creature to come forward rashly and invest public money without security? I am unable to identify accurately the safeguards of the Bill to which he refers, but only too often Government safeguards, so-called, are an embarrassment to honest people but are regarded as playful hurdles for crooks to be kept exercised over.

Mr. Rodgers: It could be argued, and I think the hon. Member for Oswestry would argue, that at any time the provision of grants and loans means taking risks which private investors would not take.
Part II of the Bill makes provision for grants and loans to encourage investment in hotels because investment is not forthcoming. This is a principle which we have long accepted. Sometimes the private investor is not prepared to come forward. Hon. Gentlemen may argue that in those circumstances public authorities should not come forward. I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of inconsistency, although I accuse some of his hon. Friends of inconsistency. However, with respect to him, it cannot then be said that public funds should be available for grants and loans as they are for the hotel industry. The principle is exactly the same.

Mr. Biffen: Will the Minister come back to the narrower point about the criteria which would guide the disposal of these funds? Are they to be purely commercial criteria in respect of the tourist industry and tourist prospects, or does the Minister see wider considerations being taken into account, such as those of regional employment and perhaps other considerations?

Mr. Rodgers: This will depend very much on the circumstances. If we were to say "commercial criteria", it is unlikely that public funds would be required since the likely return on the investment would be of such a level as to attract private funds. No one will be going out of his way to invest public


funds; this will be a stand-by position. We must envisage circumstances in which some private capital becomes available, but the public investment is in terms of a return which is less than private investors might wish to see.
The choice of project might come within the hon. Gentleman's second category. It might be a project which would bring benefit to the area in terms of employment and prosperity, the ripples of which would spread, so that many other parts of the tourist industry would benefit. These are decisions which will have to be made at the time, and within the discretion of the boards.
I am not saying that I envisage that this will often happen. I say, and I rest on this, that we should not be so doctrinaire as to deny the possibility of this being done. This is why I resist the first of the Amendments.

Mr. Biffen: If this is money which is to be disposed of on regional employment considerations and at the discretion of the boards, will the boards be given guidance, and will cost-effectiveness be taken into account in the disposal of funds in respect of regional development? The Minister must know perfectly well that hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds are being disbursed in the sacred name of regional development, and we should at least ask what are the standards to ensure that we get value for money.

Mr. Rodgers: The words "regional development" were used by the hon. Gentleman, not by me. I did not say that the funds would be used for regional development. It might be that the investment of such funds would have consequences wider than the project itself. I hope that no more will be read into my words than that. A balance will have to be struck. Far be it from me to say precisely where it will be. The hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views, and logically he will vote for the Amendments when the time comes. I do not complain about that. I want only to make clear to the House what this standpoint involves.
In regard to the second of the principal Amendments which seeks to ensure that the shares are passed at a proper price, it is clear that there are no powers in the Bill to enable tourist boards to acquire

stocks or shares compulsorily from any company. That being so, shares could pass only if there were a willing buyer and a willing seller. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. Member will recognise that the market is the best way to determine the outcome.

Mr. Emery: With the leave of the House, may I say that I found it particularly discouraging that the Minister began his reply to the debate with accusations that we were being doctrinaire. If ever there was an instance of a doctrinaire approach, it is the Government's approach on the Bill in relation to stocks and shares. We have already made clear that it is quite inappropriate.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) whose argument has been completely unanswered. He said that he had found fundamental difficulty in distinguishing Government safeguards in this matter. As usual he is absolutely right. There are no Government safeguards at all in the Bill.
8.30 p.m.
What worries me is that two points were not taken at all by the Minister. The first is that with the acquisition of shares in this manner there will be a discouragement to the investment of private capital in tasks which are of great risk and which previously have been undertaken by private enterprise. To take the Aviemore scheme as an illustration, it is a scheme that contains no Government capital. It is of a high risk nature, and I believe that it is probably true to say that as yet no profit has been made out of it. I am certain that had the Bill been in existence earlier that scheme would not have gone forward without a Government attempt to take some share or equity in the project. Therefore, it would work in such a way as to discourage private capital, which we think would be wrong.

Mr. Rodgers: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Aviemore project will be a failure? Is that the implication of his remarks?

Mr. Emery: As usual, the Minister is attempting to put words into my mouth. I said that at the moment it has not made any profit. I am saying that in such schemes with a high degree of risk—and there is a high degree of risk in a project


like Aviemore—private enterprise is less likely to come forward since the Government are being enticed to take a share in everything. We on this side of the House want to see the encouragement of risk capital.

Mr. Rodgers: I should like to get clear the hon. Member's views on Aviemore. I understand he is saying that at the moment it is not a profitable venture. Is he saying that no public capital should go into Aviemore? It would not have been completed without the provision of a ski lift.

Mr. Emery: That is an entirely false point that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Quite apart from the question of the ski lift, the scheme would not have proceeded in the way in which it has if the Bill had been in existence in the manner in which the Government wish to project it.
I turn to the second point which was entirely neglected by the Minister. We believe that the ownership of equity in certain projects which would be allowed under Clause 4 for tourist purposes ought not to be the main purpose of the B.T.A.s. Their main purpose is to get on with the marketing of tourism, to encourage the industry, and to do research into it in order to stimulate tourism, rather than to get into the matter of ownership.
It is interesting to note that right on our own borders the Irish Tourist Board had the powers to acquire equity and to take over ownership of projects. Initially, it had five hotels. It found that those hotels were making a loss. It has sold the hotels and now says publicly that it is wrong, and indeed invidious, for the board in isolation to obtain equity holdings in projects of this nature, mainly because it distracts it from its main consideration, which is the main development of tourism.

Mr. W. Baxter: Do I understand that the Conservative Party are diametrically

opposed to any public money being put into the Aviemore ski-lift project?

Mr. Emery: The point that I was making had nothing to do with the facilities which may exist round Aviemore. Aviemore would not have gone forward if there were not roads there. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the private interests should have participated in road building? That is not the case. Whether there are roads to the ski resorts and to the slopes is equally important—

Mr. W. Baxter: Mr. W. Baxterrose—

Mr. Emery: No, let me deal with the point in my own way—

Mr. William Rodgers: Too long.

Mr. Emery: I will take longer if necessary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be tempted too far along the path laid by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter).

Mr. Emery: I had not intended to be tempted too far along that road, because it would have taken me out of order.
Projects are bound to require supporting facilities, and normally they will be provided by the Government. I believe that that is accepted by both sides. That is all that I will say on the Aviemore project.
I was saying that we have an illustration on our doorstep of a tourist board which had the power to have equity holdings. Having taken those powers, it realised that they were wrong and gave them up. Why we cannot learn even from the Irish at times astonishes me. It is a poor state of affairs.
This is an important aspect, and I must ask my hon. Friends to divided the House and so try to get some sense into the Government's approach on this matter.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 201.

Division No. 288.]
AYES
[8.37 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Black, Sir Cyril
Burden, F. A.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Balniel, Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Carlisle, Mark


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Christopher




Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Doughty, Charles
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, Anthony


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gurden, Harold
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, A. W.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus




Wright, Esmond


Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John
Younger, Hn. George


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner



Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Hector Monro and


Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Heffer, Eric S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dickens, James
Henig, Stanley


Alldritt, Walter
Dobson, Ray
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Hooson, Emlyn


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Baxter, William
Ellis, John
Hynd, John


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ensor, David
Janner, Sir Barnett


Binns, John
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Finch, Harold
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Judd, Frank


Boston, Terence
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ford, Ben
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Brooks, Edwin
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fowler, Gerry
Lawson, George


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lee, John (Reading)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lomas, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Gregory, Arnold
Loughlin, Charles


Conlan, Bernard
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Luard, Evan


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lubbock, Eric


Crossman, Rt. H. Richard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Dalyell, Tam
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacDermot, Niall


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Macdonald, A. H.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Hazell, Bert
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)







McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert


McNamara, J. Kevin
Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Joseph


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Small, William


Manuel, Archie
Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


Mapp, Charles
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Marks, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Symonds, J. B.


Marquand, David
Palmer, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mayhew, Christopher
Park, Trevor
Thornton, Ernest


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Urwin, T. W.


Mendelson, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Varley, Eric G.


Mikardo, Ian
Pavitt, Laurence
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Millan, Bruce
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, David




White, Mrs. Eirene


Molloy, William
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rankin, John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Murray, Albert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Neal, Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Winnick, David


Newens, Stan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Norwood, Christopher
Rowlands, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oakes, Gordon
Ryan, John
Mr. Neil McBride and


O'Malley, Brian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. John McCann.

Clause 5

MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES AND POWERS

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.

No. 41, in line 4, leave out 'Association' and insert 'Authority'.

No. 42, in line 14, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

No. 44, in page 5, line 18, leave out 'Association' and insert 'Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
I hope that the Government will not think me unduly tiresome if I refer to the Long Title, which is to
Provide for the establishment of a British Travel Association and Tourist Boards for England, Scotland and Wales with responsibility for promoting the development of tourism to and within Great Britain …".
Subsection (4) confers on each tourist board power
to enter into and carry out agreements with the Minister of Overseas Development where-under the Board acts, at the expense of that Minister, as the instrument by means of which technical assistance is furnished by him …".
This presumably means that each tourist board, which has been appointed in the light, and because, of its knowledge of conditions in England, Scotland

and Wales, will then be deploying its knowledge of this country in every corner of the globe, except behind the Iron Curtain, where even the boards fear to go.
This requires a bit of explanation. I am astonished that such a provision should creep into a Bill specifically designed to promote the interests and the cause of tourism in this country.
I am not in the least encouraged by the requirement that each tourist board, before it engages in these activities, requires the consent of what is called "the relevant Minister". I assume that the relevant Minister is the first cousin of a competent authority. Clause 1(6) defines "the relevant Minister" as
in relation to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, the Board of Trade, in relation to the Scottish Tourist Board, the Secretary of State for Scotland and, in relation to the Wales Tourist Board, the Secretary of State for Wales".

Mr. David Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is wandering all over the shop.

Mr. Peyton: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Griffiths: I was not talking.

Mr. Peyton: I suppose it is legitimate to ask what the hon. Gentleman was doing. It sounded like a human utterance. Nevertheless, I shall let that go.
It seems a little odd that under the provisions of the Bill the Wales Tourist Board, with the consent of the relevant


Minister, being the Secretary of State for Wales, can literally take a pin and put it in a map of the world and say, "Here is a good spot for us to go and build an hotel in with the encouragement of the Minister of Overseas Development who wishes to pay the bill."
One is justified in asking the Government exactly what qualifications they think the Wales Tourist Board, distinguished as it may be for its intimate knowledge—and I flatter it with this—of the affairs of tourism in Wales, can be credited with which could be remotely useful in the outer reaches of the Caribbean. What possible value would its knowledge of the Wales tourist industry to be launching out into a bold project in Madagascar or New Guinea? If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can deny that that is what the Bill does, I shall give way to him now and we can forget about the Amendment.

Mr. John Nott: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is an ancient tradition known as the Furry Dance? I am sure that taxpayers in my constituency would be most disturbed to think that they were contributing to a Furry Dance in the Fiji Islands. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is intolerable.

Mr. Peyton: I shall leave my hon. Friend to pursue the matter of the Furry Dance in Fiji. It leaves us with a nasty feeling that perhaps the relevant Ministers and the tourist boards between them, even with the advice of the Minister of Overseas Development, will not really be very well placed to decide whether such a project will be really worth while.

Mr. Gower: Would it not also be possible to spend a lot of time, and for the members of the Scottish, English and Wales Tourist Boards to obtain false impressions which they would try to apply, wrongly, in Scotland, England and Wales?

Mr. Peyton: It is very much my fear that people who come under the influence of these boards may suffer in the course of their experience from some terible misapprehensions, but I do not wish to go into that now. I am concerned to obtain advice. It is unlucky for the hon. Gentleman, though I do not doubt that it is

fairly well timed, that neither his hon. Friend the Minister of State nor his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is here to deal with this embarrassing situation. Neither is the Minister of Overseas Development here, who is the person who will sponsor these projects.
We do not want to comment on all the absences from the Government Front Bench; most of us would rejoice in them. But the House is entitled to seek advice on this Amendment from the Minister of Overseas Development and the President of the Board of Trade. But they have run away, and I do not blame them. If it is not an accident that this subsection has got into a Bill in which, according to its Long Title, it has no place, then they have been so embarrassed by this fearful, last moment realisation that they have left the poor Under-Secretary to deal with it as best as he can.
All of us on this side of the House are united in our sincere and deep sympathy towards the Under-Secretary. It must be very difficult for him to explain exactly how a Bill designed to promote the interests of tourism within this country could possibly be extended to embrace a provision so wide and drafted with such abandon as to include the possibility of hotel and tourist projects anywhere in the world, simply because the Minister of Overseas Development has some benign intentions towards some place.
I can leave my hon. Friends to deal with some of the more ghastly possibilities which could occur against the background of this provision when "relevant Ministers" and tourist boards go into action. It is either a case of crassly careless drafting, which I do not believe, or the Government are attempting, most improperly, to slip into a Bill a provision which has no place in it whatever.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has moved his Amendment with customary persuasiveness. I would remind the House of what the Overseas Aid Act 1966 purports to do. This lies at the heart of the subsection which we are seeking to delete. The Long Title suggests that the Act is:
An act to make provision as to the power of the Minister of Overseas Development to provide assistance to, or for the benefit of, overseas countries and territories".


The main mechanism whereby these facilities are to be provided is contained in subsection (1), referred to in that part of the Bill which we seek to delete. The Government are proposing to have as part of their continuing aid programme, one public agency operating through another, with Government-to-Government transfer of resources, which they call overseas aid. For this purpose they have chosen one of their latest bureaucracies, the tourist board. This extraordinary responsibility is being willed on these bureaucracies. Indeed, it offers members of the boards almost limitless scope for travel in respect of the objectives to which they turn their hand.
9.0 p.m.
If it is the objective of the Government, through this legislation, to promote the tourist industries of the developing countries, I suggest that that can be left to free enterprise. I have recently been on holiday in Kenya and Tanzania, two countries which one might reasonably suppose would be beneficiaries of overseas aid and, therefore, would fall within the terms of the Bill. But both have growing and flourishing tourist industries and could reasonably aim to become the popular-priced Caribbean area for Western Europe.
There already exist private financial links from Europe with those areas. If the Government wish to facilitate the development of tourism in those parts of Africa, then by far the happiest way to set about it would be to set aside any capital restraints that they may impose on British companies and individuals seeking to apply their judgment, skill and investments in those countries.
My enjoyment of the holiday was only slightly affected by the immense bureaucracy which is being superimposed in those countries. I found it in the sense that holiday registers are more complex than in Britain. It would be doing a disservice to tourism in East Africa if we were to encourage its contacts with this country to be channelled through governmental rather than through free enterprise entrepreneurial agencies.
I have shown that the consequences of this legislation may be harmful to the developing tourist interests of East Africa. But suppose, for the sake of

argument, that the Government are successful and that, for example, the Welsh Tourist Board possesses some peculiar facility which enables it to pass on to the tourist industries of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda the know-how which enables their speedy and successful emergence as mass suppliers of package holidays for United Kingdom workers. What will be the consequences for our tourist industry and balance of payments?
All the arguments that have been deployed in support of the Bill—in respect of either import saving or the attraction of overseas invisible earnings—will be reversed on the presumed success of the subsection. Indeed, the subsection is nonsense and is a contradiction to the main purposes of the Bill. If it seeks to offer assistance to the developing countries—I regret the absence of a representative of the Ministry of Overseas Development—then, instead of mobilising the healthy element of profit, it offers those countries the dead hand of bureaucracy.

Mr. Gower: I think that the Government, on reflection, should feel that this subsection is the height of absurdity in the context of this Bill. If I do not put it more strongly, it seems to many of us that this is a most inappropriate instrument for giving any kind of assistance to emerging territories abroad.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate, develop and encourage the growth of the British tourist industry. There is nothing consistent with that purpose in that subsection. If the subsection were used to any great degree persons who otherwise would be engaged in developing tourism in England, Scotland and Wales would be spending time abroad which could be better devoted to the main purpose of the Bill. By objecting to this subsection we are not objecting to the objectives of the Overseas Aid Act, 1966. That is separate legislation. Means are laid down in that legislation for giving aid to territories overseas. The kind of means prescribed by that Measure do not at all resemble the means suggested in this subsection.
As a result of this subsection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) suggested, we would give some positive help to those territories. I can imagine a representative of the Wales


Tourist Board advising someone in an African territory with a very heavy rainfall about his experience of the rather high rainfall in parts of Wales, or someone in the highlands of Eastern Africa advising people of his experience in some of the higher parts of Scotland. But it requires a slightly excited imagination to see how this could happen! I believe it was suggested at some stage in the discussions in Committee that our people going out to these territories would acquire knowledge which would enable them to carry out their duties with the English, the Wales or the Scottish Board. I find that hard to credit. If this subsection were employed at all it would mean that some of those working on those boards would willy-nilly be gallivanting overseas for no good purpose connected with the Bill. I do not suggest that that would be their intention; they would believe that they were doing a worth-while job overseas. That probably would be the instruction given to them. But in connection with the purposes of the Bill I do not think it would be at all worth while.
The very circumstances of our tourist industry are so different from the climatic conditions of most of the territories which benefit from the application of the Overseas Aid Act, 1966. How can one compare the conditions of tourism, say, in Uganda, Kenya, West Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, the Caribbean area or Fiji with conditions which obtain in most of England, Wales and Scotland? What similarity is there? Most of the territories which attract aid under the Act are in tropical or sub-tropical climates. Whether we like it or not, our country is in the temperate region of the world, has a high incidence of rain, and a disappointingly small amount of sunshine. The conditions are so dissimilar and the circumstances of the tourist industry so dissimilar.
We are catering for a native population which wants a certain kind of holiday at the seaside or inland, in an informal way on caravan sites, or motoring. We cater for visitors who come predominantly from rather sophisticated European countries or from North America. The territories which benefit under the 1966 Act are greatly different in character. They have new tourist industries. Their tourist industries have grown up with

rather more specialised characteristics. Nothing in these islands can be compared with the tourist industry which operates in the Caribbean. On the north shore of Jamaica there is a luxurious tourist industry catering predominantly for North Americans and for a minority of the wealthier visitors from Europe. There is a very different tourist industry in the Bahamas and in Barbados. Kenya has a tourist industry which is connected with hunting.
What did the Government have in mind when this subsection was planned? This is an inappropriate instrument for giving any help to any of the territories which benefit under the 1966 Act. It is undesirable that in addition to that aid we should slip in some extra aid by some back-door method. We should be told what we are spending under the 1966 Act. If our expenditure under that Act is inadequate, Parliament can decide to increase it, but do not let us have some ill-defined uncertain amount of aid slipped in by this back-door method in a Bill which was not planned to have any connection with overseas aid.
This subsection is highly objectionable. It was not designed for the benefit of the British tourist industry. I do not believe that it was designed for the benefit of overseas countries. It should be deleted.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The subsection seems to be based on the assumption that people from overseas will enjoy living in hotels and dining in restaurants of the kind that Britain has and that because of the special knowledge that the three tourist boards have of Britain's tourist industry they will be able to lend assistance to others seeking to have tourist industries.
This is an extraordinary assumption. I thought that the Bill was founded upon the proposition that the British tourist industry is not good enough and needs to be improved. The subsection carries the suggestion that our tourist industry is so brimming over with expertise that the rest of the world cannot wait for experts in our tourist industry to go rushing off to show other countries how to run their tourist industries. This assumption contradicts the whole philosophy underlying the Bill, which is that our industry is not good enough.
If I were to summarise the import of the Clause, I would have to say that its intention is to promote holidays abroad instead of holidays at home. The Clause is virtually saying, "Do not come to Blackpool. Go to the South of France, because your kind tourist board will provide overseas resorts with the technical expertise that will make it attractive for you to go there". My understanding of the purpose of the Bill is that it is to promote tourism in Britain, yet this proposal in brief means that the tourist boards will be assisting the development of tourism elsewhere.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gower: My hon. Friend has probably made an inadvertent error. I am sure that he will not want it to remain in his argument, which is otherwise so good. I do not think that the South of France would come into this; it is not one of the territories which benefit from the Overseas Aid Act.

Mr. Griffiths: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I have the Act before me, and I am well aware that it is designed to assist those underdeveloped territories defined within it. The Short Title to that Act includes the Indus Basin Development Fund. The Act is subsumed into the subsection we seek to delete. Will the Minister tell us that the Indus Basin Development Fund shall not be one of the beneficiaries of the technical assistance prescribed in the subsection? The House is at least entitled to know, if technical assistance is to be provided, whether there are limits to the areas to which it shall go.
The parent Act extends over the whole wide world. It refers not only to the Indus Basin Development Fund but to overseas service pensions schemes. This is an interesting area where technical assistance will be provided. Not only will there be a lot of free overseas trips for members of the various boards to see where their expertise might be needed but if the Overseas Aid Act is seriously meant the possibility arises that those gentlemen will be going off to assist in overseas pensions arrangements. It is a very agreeable life that is contemplated for them, but I cannot imagine that it is a part of the Bill that the House wishes to see.
There are a number of other specific disadvantages of the subsection, and it should be removed for them as well as for the others. First, it would provide technical help, what ever that means, to a number of places which have built-in advantages of climate and local conditions which this country does not enjoy. Our tourist industry is competing with many areas that have better weather. They have more sunshine and may have a much more agreeable climate altogether. I do not see why it should be any part of a scheme to promote tourism in Great Britain that we should actively assist those with built-in climatic advantages that we do not have, thereby enabling them to compete with the British tourist industry even more effectively than they do now. It must be wrong to provide assistance to those with climatic and other physical advantages which our trade does not enjoy.
Under the subsection, the help the tourist boards, shall have power to provide is described as "technical assistance". In my experience that is one of those phrases that mean everything one has forgotten or everything one has not been able to define in another way. It is one of the new bogus and cliché terms of our age. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what is the technical assistance that the tourist boards are supposed to provide. I have given some thought to this. The Scottish Tourist Board, for example, is no doubt very learned and knowledgeable on such particularly Scottish arts as tossing the caber. This is undoubtedly a tourist attraction, but are we to suppose that the board will promote the ancient sport of tossing the caber in the Cayman Islands? Is this the sort of technical expertise it is to provide?
Then again, no doubt the Wales Tourist Board—I wish it the best of luck—is extremely good at putting on local eisteddfods. Are we to have a series of miniature eisteddfods for the Zulus?

Mr. Arthur Probert: It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that I was present at an eisteddfod in Swaziland.

Mr. Griffiths: I am delighted to hear that and obviously the board in that case is investing in success. No doubt there is every prospect of eisteddfods all over


the world. But the question we have to answer is whether it should be part of the Bill that public money be provided for the purpose of eisteddfods in Swaziland. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to have technical expertise provided for launching an eisteddfod in Swaziland by the Wales Tourist Board rather than see that help provided to promote an eisteddfod in his own constituency?

Mr. Probert: What I am trying to do is to correct the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) will resist the temptation to answer.

Mr. Griffiths: It is clear that one can tempt some hon. Members but not you, Mr. Speaker. I pass on. I was considering the kinds of technical assistance which could be provided and was illustrating that the special local knowledge acquired by tourist boards here is not always wholly relevant to the areas which may receive that benefit.
Then it occurred to me that, in addition to the technical expertise, there are all these interesting local customs. There is the whole question of the technical help which the B.T.A. might give for instance in the preparation of menus. In the hotel business, catering and menus are extremely important. I have been considering some of the possible menus. Bubble and squeak for the Seychelles; Yorkshire pudding. No doubt the mysteries of manufacturing that particular commodity would go down very well.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I tremble to think how many menus there are in the world. I trust that we shall have only a small selection.

Mr. Griffiths: You have stopped me at the hors-d'oeuvre, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should not develop the main course. However, I think that the point can be well taken that technical expertise, if it is to include the gastronomic aspects of the British tourist industry, is not the kind of thing which I thought this Bill was supposed to promote. I thought that the object of the exercise was to improve the gastronomy of our own tourist industry.
I think that it is faintly arrogant that we should suppose that we have a technical expertise in catering which the rest of the world, particularly under-developed

countries, is lusting to get hold of. I do not think that it is any business of the Government to try to provide it. Where is this assistance to go? The Clause, which is based upon the Overseas Aid Act, 1966, opens up vast areas in every continent to which this technical expertise could be directed. The 1966 Act referred to Perim, the Kuria Muria Islands, Kamaran and a whole range of other territories. I see that the Minister of Overseas Development is not here—only the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who perhaps comes under technical assistance for overseas countries.
It is essential that the Minister should say which countries he envisages receiving the technical help this Clause would provide. I put three specific areas to him. There has recently been an operation in Anguilla. I should like him to say now whether he feels that the technical assistance envisaged here could be provided to Anguilla. He cannot answer that because the Minister of Overseas Development referred to here is not available to tell us where the technical assistance we are being asked to provide will be needed.
It is wholly wrong that the House should be asked to agree to a general power to provide technical expertise to the whole world without the Minister who is to provide it being here to tell us to whom it should go and why. I doubt very much whether the Under-Secretary is in a position to answer my question. The second area is East Africa. It was pointed out that there is every possibility of a large tourist industry developing upon the East African littoral, attracting many working men and women from this country travelling in the new jumbo jets. Does the Minister visualise that technical assistance shall be provided under this Clause for the developing industry? If this is so, can he say how that will help the British balance of payments?
Can he say whether that would not mean that more people would go abroad for holidays and fewer would take them here? Would not that contradict the whole purpose of the Bill? One overseas territory included in the Overseas Aid Act is Rhodesia. Will the Under-Secretary say whether this Clause would commit us to providing technical assistance for the development of a Rhodesian tourist industry? We are being asked


to give a blank cheque to the Government and the tourist boards to provide a vast range of technical help, much of which is badly needed here and which cannot easily be spared elsewhere. We are being asked to do so without any Minister to tell us to which countries this technical aid may go, on what terms, for what purpose and in what way this will help, either other tourist industries or this country's balance of payments. The Minister ought to be able to answer these questions before we vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that we have a fair amount of business ahead of us yet.

9.30 p.m.

Sir C. Taylor: I have never been to an eisteddfod in Swaziland, and I am not sure that I have seen a jaguar or an armadillo, but I must correct my hon. Friend when he says that this Bill is to deal with bad hotels in this country. It is not at all. We have some of the best hotels of every category. We do not have bad hotels; we have very high taxation which other countries do not. The Government want to increase the number of hotel rooms. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. I raised it in Committee and got no joy. I will explain why, in Committee, I did not feel it necessary to divide on the deletion of subsection (4).
It is very strange that a Bill to promote tourism in this country should give to the Minister of Overseas Development the power of rendering technical assistance. If this technical assistance were given by the B.T.A. or any of the tourist boards it should be paid for, because the B.T.A. and all the tourist boards will be supported out of the taxpayers' money. We are not under any obligation to offer free those services to overseas competitors. The Minister may say that no money is involved other than the cost of the technical assistance, which would be very small. But I have no confidence in the Minister of Overseas Development. The Minister of Overseas Development, having been given the technical assistance of the B.T.A. and the tourist boards in this country, will immediately wish to give money to implement the technical assistance. This money will be going to our competitors.
In Committee I mentioned a hotel in Malta. The Minister of Overseas Development did not give this hotel any money, but we all know that we have been supporting Malta, quite rightly, to a limited extent. The Government of Malta gave an American company £500,000 to build a hotel in Malta. I do not mention its name, for obvious reasons. But it imported all its furniture and equipment from the United States tax free. It has been given a tax-free holiday for 10 years.
Is that the sort of thing that we should encourage by the Bill? I do not believe it is. If we were a rich country, and if our balance of payments was all right and our gold reserves were fantastic, we should be willing and able to help developing countries overseas. But I am old-fashioned about this. I do not believe that the Government should go on their hands and knees to Zurich and borrow money from Zurich and the I.M.F.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall debate that matter tomorrow.

Sir C. Taylor: But this is a very important matter. We are proposing to give aid to overseas countries for the development of tourism. Yet the Government go to Zurich and the I.M.F. and borrow money which they then give away to developing countries. This money is not ours to give. I am not against helping developing countries if we can do so out of our own resources. I am not allowed to borrow money from the bank and give it away to people who are less well breeched than I am.
The only reason why I did not ask the Committee to divide on this Clause was the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He said:
Of course, we shall outline this more fully on Report if the right hon Member wants us to do so, but … there are similar provisions in the Gas and Electricity and the Transport Act, 1968, and there is also, I understand, a similar provision in the Post Office Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th April, 1969; c. 323–4.]
Parliament slipped up on those occasions. I do not want it to slip up on this occasion. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): We have all been enjoying the knock-about.


[Interruption.] A voice from behind me says that I should speak for myself. I have been enjoying the knock-about. It is totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion, but it passes an hour between 8.30 and 9.30. I notice that the Front Bench did not participate in the debate and that it was led from behind by the advance guard of progress, the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).
I regret that the hon. Gentlemen appear neither to have read the Bill nor the proceedings in Committee. Most of the questions which they asked would have been answered by a simple reading of the Bill. The basic argument—apart from the eisteddfod in Switzerland and the cabers, of which I am very fond, being tossed in the Fiji Islands—was whether or not the provision should be in the Bill and whether we should give overseas aid at all. Behind the knock-about, the comedy, was the basic argument that we should not be giving assistance in any form overseas—

Sir C. Taylor: Not borrowed money.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are on Report. Three hon. Gentlemen are seeking to intervene at once. This is a debate not a conversation.

Mr. Buchan: With my usual generosity I will give way to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Both the Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, are very gracious. I intervene simply to ask the Minister to accept that on the record in a whole series of Bills dealing with overseas aid my position has been absolutely clear. What I am doubting is the wisdom of this particular Clause offering technical assistance in this particular Bill.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the provision being in this Bill. The argument on the concept involved in the Clause was discussed during the passage of the parent Bill. The Clause enables tourist boards to assist when asked to do so by the Minister of Overseas Development.
We have been told that the costs will fall on tourist development. On the contrary Clause 5(4) states:
… at the expense of that Minister …
That is to say, the Minister of Overseas Development. The cost is subsumed in that, and the arguments on cost therefore are totally irrelevant.
The third point was whether or not expertise existed in the tourist industry in this country which could be of assistance overseas and we had fun in talking about experts in Welsh rainfall dealing with the hotter climes overseas. This contradicts the earlier argument in which hon. Member after hon. Member pleaded the expertise, knowledge and skill that had been acquired by the British Travel Association as a reason for retaining the name.
I accept all the praise that was given to the British Travel Association. The new body may not know much about pitching a tent in the under-developed desert areas, but may know a great deal about the creation of organisations which can be imparted.
A characteristic of modern scientific research and development work is the "rub-off" argument. Hon. Members must not sneer at this. Knowledge and experience can be gained, and, if it is accreted in the new organisation which we are setting up, the tourist boards should be enabled to give that expertise to the Ministry of Overseas Development when it is called for.

Mr. Peyton: The Minister is not answering the point.

Mr. Buchan: This is a matter of opinion. I had not given way. The hon. Member may get in later if he behaves himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When I did the hon. Member the honour at the beginning of his speech of fetching out the appropriate notes in order to pay full heed to all that he had to say, he used the opportunity to make one or two remarks about the inattention of the Minister. Now that I have his attention, I hope that he will give me the opportunity to speak.
The hon. Member had one good point. He felt that this provision was out of touch with the Long Title of the Bill. He is quite right, if he assumes that it is the intention of the board to initiate that kind of development. But it is not.


It is no part of the function of the board under the Bill to do anything to promote tourism other than in Great Britain. That is why it is necessary to write the provision in the form in which it appears, otherwise they would be unable to give assistance if it were needed. That is where the analogy with other bodies comes in.
When the hon. Member for Eastbourne withdrew a similar Amendment earlier, I said that I would comment further on one aspect. I dealt at great length with the argumen in Committee. The point was made that it was necessary to include these matters or they would not have been regarded as important.
The point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil was that the Long Title might have prevented this function from being carried out. I was told that on the basis of the Coal Board experience it was not necessary. We put in the same kind of enabling provision in the Gas and Electricity Acts, in the Civil Aviation Act, in the Transport Act, and it is also being included in the Post Office Bill. This does not mean to say that any of these bodies on its own initiative is launching out on independent schemes of overseas aid. It is subsumed within the same Vote. It is to enable these bodies to undertake such work.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) argued this matter at great length and I said that I would look into it. The hon. Member was right and I accepted his point, but I understand that it led to difficulties on the part of the Coal Board when it has tried to give such assistance. I will not go any further than to say that difficulties have existed and it is clear that the Clause is necessary if that kind of assistance is to be given.
There are two other points I wish to mention. It is not right to say that all we are doing here is to put our own tourist industry at a disadvantage when compared with rival tourist industries. No country in the modern world can exist by taking in only her own washing. I do not consider that Britain as a trading nation, and as a nation which for its population has more contacts with other countries than any other country in the world, can expect to develop if the potential market cannot be added to in the overseas areas.
There is a selfish as well as a humanitarian argument. It does not help us if foreign countries continue to remain on the basis of requiring foreign aid. The sooner they can acquire foreign exchange and enter into the trading world, the better in the long run for Britain. Even on the argument of advantage to Britain, there is a good case for this kind of work. But we are not, on this provision discussing that matter. This is merely an enabling Clause so that the cost to the Ministry of Overseas Development in carrying out that kind of work will be subsumed in its Vote.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Nott: We are very grateful to the Minister for answering our points. However, I want to follow the one made about the Minister's presence as the sole representative of the Government. I understood that the Bill was promoted by the Board of Trade but that the hon. Gentleman represented the Scottish Office, though possibly he has great experience in the receipt of subsidies from the English taxpayer and, to that extent, is qualified to answer this debate. Even so, there should have been a Minister present representing the Board of Trade.

Mr. Pardoe: Since the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in Cornwall, he, too, is extremely experienced in and I hope grateful for the receipt of grants paid for by the English taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Report stage is more formal than Committee. Even if it were not, remarks must still be in order. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Nott: Obviously, I cannot reply to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on this point and I will let it pass, except for saying, if I may, that as a member of the Cornish nationalist movement, he should be fully—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will get on with the debate.

Mr. Nott: Although I have reservations about the setting up of the Scottish, Welsh and English Tourist Boards, I am prepared to accept that they may be able to contribute some good to tourism. However, it would be taken extremely hard by taxpayers in the West Country if they realised that they were being asked to


contribute to technical assistance in overseas countries.
The Minister has said that taxpayers will not be asked to do that through this Bill because it will be a charge upon the Vote of the Ministry of Overseas Development. But what happens if half the members of the tourist board whose function is to help with the development of tourism in the West Country take off for the Fiji Islands, Egypt or some underdeveloped country? If the Ministry of Overseas Development is to reimburse the Board of Trade or the tourist board for the expenditure thereby incurred, how is the time spent by the members of the tourist board in giving that technical assistance to be costed?
The Bill is supposed to be concerned with the development of tourism in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, the time and energy of the full-time administrative members of tourist boards should be devoted to that end. If technical assistance is to be given to overseas countries, how will it be costed?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, we on this side of the House want to know precisely how much we are giving in overseas aid. When we debate overseas aid, we want to see exactly how much money is going to countries overseas from the British taxpayer. If Cornwall is to suggest the appointment of one or two people to the English Tourist Board, we want to know how much that board will be reimbursed for the time that its members spend on giving technical assistance to countries overseas.
I have the gravest doubts about the whole subsection. It is utterly inappropriate that, let us say, the administrative member of the English Tourist Board who happens to be aware of conditions in Cornwall and, as a result, may have some knowledge of humidity should be sent to the Kalahari Desert to advise on humidity conditions there.
I really believe that the Clause should not be in the Bill. It is irrelevant. The Minister, in his winding up speech, said

that many hon. Members on this side of the House had not read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage. He was wrong in that and had no grounds for saying it. I know that my hon. Friends have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of the Bill in great detail.

I would ask the Minister a question based on a comment he made in Committee:
We are not thrusting experts upon Granada."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th April 1969; c. 319.]
I wonder whether these experts wish to be thrust, because I must tell the Minister that if these gentlemen are appointed and their job is to advise on the development of tourism in the United Kingdom, I see no reason why they should be sent out on secondment to advise on tourism overseas.

Although many of my hon. Friends on previous occasions have commented upon our desire to help people, if I may quote but one example I really believe that it would be quite wrong if members could be seconded from a tourist board which is responsible for the development of tourism in the West Country to go out and help with the development of tourism in Gibraltar, to which the Ministry of Overseas Development is planning to give £600,000, mainly, no doubt, for the development of tourism in Gibraltar.

I am not necessarily against assistance to Gibraltar but if we are to give £600,000 for the development of tourism and other facilities in Gibraltar, that should come from the Ministry of Overseas Development and its Vote; and if any secondment for technical assistance is involved, then the taxpayers—who, in the end, are going to provide the money required for the Bill—should know precisely how this technical assistance is being costed, so that they can see exactly what is paid by Britain for overseas development and what is not.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 201.

Division No. 289.]
AYES
[9.52 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Lord
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biffen, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bell, Ronald
Black, Sir Cyril




Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, Charles
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tilney, John




Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel
More, Jasper
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Gibson-Watt, David
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wiggin, A. W.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhew, Victor
Nott, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peel, John
Younger, Hn. George


Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)






NOES


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gregory, Arnold


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Archer, Peter
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Armstrong, Ernest
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dickens, James
Hamling, William


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dobson, Ray
Hannan, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Joel
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Baxter, William
Dunnett, Jack
Hazell, Bert


Beaney, Alan
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Henig, Stanley


Binns, John
Eadie, Alex
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hooley, Frank


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hooson, Emlyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
English, Michael
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Booth, Albert
Ensor, David
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Boston, Terence
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boyden, James
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hunter, Adam


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hynd, John


Brooks, Edwin
Fernyhough, E.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Finch, Harold
Janner, Sir Barnett


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Reginald
Judd, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kelley, Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kenyon, Clifford


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)







Lawson, George
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Leadbitter, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Molloy, William
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Lee, John (Reading)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, E.


Lomas, Kenneth
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Ryan, John


Loughlin, Charles
Murray, Albert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Luard, Evan
Neal, Harold
Sheldon, Robert


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Newens, Stan
Slater, Joseph


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Small, William


McCann, John
Norwood, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


MacDermot, Niall
Oakes, Gordon
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Macdonald, A. H.
O'Malley, Brian
Symonds, J. B.


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Orbach, Maurice
Taverne, Dick


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mackie, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Padley, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pardoe, John
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Park, Trevor
Weitzman, David


Manuel, Archie
Parker, John (Dagenham)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mapp, Charles
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Marks, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)




Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mayhew, Christopher
Pentland, Norman
Winnick, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mendelson, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Mikardo, Ian
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Bruce
Rankin, John
Mr. Charles Grey and


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Mr. Neil McBride.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Development of Tourism Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.)

Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 7

GRANTS FOR PROVISION OF NEW HOTELS

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 6, line 23, after 'Board', insert
'after the completion of the hotel'.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with that Amendment we can take Amendment No. 106, in Clause 8, page 7, line 23, leave out 'after the completion of the extension or alteration' and insert
'by payment on account against cost of work certificates',
and Amendment No. 108, in Clause 9, page 8, line 7, leave out 'after the completion of the installation' and insert
'by payment on account against cost of work certificates',
which bear on the same point.

Mr. Buchan: The Bill as originally drafted provided an entitlement to grant after completion. In Committee a number of Amendments were put down, one of which deleted the provision that the new hotel project must be completed before it became eligible for grant, but this creates a number of difficulties. For example, it would be necessary to amend Clause 10, which prevents a tourist board from paying a grant for a new hotel to anyone who is not either the occupier or the lessor on the date of the first opening of the hotel after completion. Second, we do not accept the principle of payment by instalments, and we do not intend to make consequential Amendments to make this possible, because of the complications that would arise.
As a result, the Bill is in a very untidy state, and we would have to rely on a later Clause to impose the provision that projects entitled to grant under this Clause must first be completed. I have therefore moved the Amendment to insert those words.

Mr. Evelyn King: I think that the Minister's explanation is unsatisfactory. All the Minister said was that if the Amendments were rejected consequential Amendments would be necessary to other parts of the Bill. This is not an argument of substance. I think that this is a singularly unimaginative suggestion by the Government.
It must be relevant for us to consider the economic climate in which we live. We have got to the point almost of usury in the Old Testament sense. It is part of the Government's policy that overdrafts cannot be given, that credit shall in every case be restricted to the utmost, restricted to the point at which firms in my constituency are finding difficulty in paying their wages.
It is in that climate that we are asked to approve a Clause which says that although help may be given to hotels for a variety of purposes, no money shall be advanced to them until the work is completed. This may be all right in big cities such as London where big companies are involved, but in my constituency in Dorset we have no Hilton Hotels, no big hotels, no big companies. Hotel keeping, though an industry upon which we are vastly dependent, is on a very small scale, and an hotel with 10 to 20 bedrooms is regarded as a fair-sized hotel. These people do not have the necessary capital, and it follows that the builders who carry out this work are also short of capital. They cannot borrow.
Nor is this the only case in which the Government do this. There is a parallel with the agricultural industry where subsidies are withheld because farmers have not filled up a form. Most painful parallels occur when a grant has been made to a householder and is withheld because the work was begun too soon. These are objectionable practices. If we give a subsidy, let us do so in a way which enables it to be made use of.
The Minister has given no substantial reason why normal payments should not be made on account as work proceeds, as is common in the building industry. This is particularly hard on the small hotel or boarding-house owner, the man who cannot raise capital, and it is a piece of favouritism towards the millionaire outfit. I ask the Minister to reconsider this.

Sir C. Taylor: I had intended to move an Amendment in Committee dealing with this, but to my astonishment the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) put his name above my Amendment and was called to move it. He said in Committee:
My Amendment is based on the normal practice governing the financing of new building

and the assumption that the boards would, from time to time, be prepared to take a calculated risk and at least have the power to make interim payments on account where they seem desirable and work on construction is progressing.
The hon. Member went on to say that if those interim payments were not made, the constructors of these hotels would have to borrow money from the bank or in some other way. We all know that small businesses cannot borrow money from the banks, and there are very few alternative forms of borrowing open to them. The Minister said that this was where grants and loans came in, and that if an operator was in receipt of a grant he could get a loan to tide him over. That seemed to be an untidy way of doing things. If the B.T.A. agrees that an operator should receive a grant it is normal practice for the payments to be made against cost of works certificates or other documents, without going through the curious procedure of promising a grant and giving a loan.
The hon. Gentleman went on later:
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to have second thoughts about this. I do not think that the position he has taken up would be prejudiced in the slightest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 17th April, 1969; c. 356–360.]
The hon. Member was not convinced; nor was I. We put it to the vote and won. The Government side was convinced by our argument. I regret to say that although the hon. Member for Lewisham, South had moved the Amendment and had expressed dissatisfaction with the Bill, he voted with the Government. However, the Committee decided in its wisdom, by seven votes to five, to carry the Amendment.

Mr. Pardoe: We are discussing with the Amendment two Amendments standing in my name, Nos. 106 and 108. If accepted, my proposal would do to the Bill precisely the opposite of what the Government Amendment proposes. In other words, it would ensure that payment could be made on account against a cost of work certificate. I regret that the Minister's arguments entirely missed this point.

Mr. Buchan: Because I knew that the hon. Gentleman would speak following me, I felt that it would be better tor him to deploy his case so that I could follow


by giving him an adequate reply, particularly since two contradictory Amendments have been grouped together.

Mr. Pardoe: I am glad to learn that the hon. Gentleman will give a more detailed reply later.
Although acceptance of my proposal would mean amending the Bill later, notably in Clause 10, this should not inhibit the Government from accepting it. My Amendments arise, to a large extent, out of experience which I have had by representing a development area and by having knowledge of the administration of grants paid for industrial development purposes. Like other hon. Members, I have come across many difficulties because of the need to bridge the gap between the start and completion of an enterprise and the payment of Government grant. Bridging finance is notoriously difficult to obtain today and, for the small hotelier, it is virtually non-existent.
About 18 months ago a hotel, the first to be built in Newquay for many years, was under construction. Workmen had to be laid off for a time because the bridging finance ran out. Finally we were able to obtain additional help. This is obviously an inefficient way to finance developments in the tourist industry. Ideally, I should like developments of this kind financed from cash flow. This might be possible for hotels with an all-the-year-round trade. However, in Cornwall we do not have an all-the-year-round trade, which means that we do not have an all-the-year-round cash flow.
Most building work is done in the winter, when hotels are closed. Bills often become payable before the season has begun and before any money has begun to flow in. This means that a considerable gap must be bridged, and unless the Minister can produce convincing arguments to the contrary, I cannot see, other than by accepting my proposal, from where this money is to come.
We are told that the grant will become payable after the completion of work, but exactly when will it be paid? In administering industrial development grants there is often a long delay—of six months or more—before the cash is paid into the bank account of the developer. At what stage will the amount of grant be decided and the eligibility of the work in hand be

assessed? When a developer goes ahead with a development under the industrial development grant procedure he is uncertain of the amount that he will receive and whether the work which he has instructed his builder to do will be eligible for grant. It is, therefore, impossible for him to say to his bank manager, "The Government have promised me a cheque and I will be getting x £ on a certain date." I want to know from the Under-Secretary at exactly what stage in this process tourist boards will decide whether particular work is eligible and how much grant they will pay.
10.15 p.m.
The size of the grant will often decide the extent of the plans the developer proposes. Often he will be extremely dependent on this type of grant and unable to go ahead until he knows exactly where he stands and on what rate it will be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The size of grant and the rates of grant come under Clause 11. We are discussing now whether the hotelier should get the grant on completion of the work or in the way suggested in the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Pardoe: I entirely accept the point, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry that I may have strayed. The hotelier should know at what point he will get the grant. It should be paid on account during the course of the work and there should be no delay. I cannot see that administrative reasons inhibiting the Government from accepting this proposal. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) suggested that it could be paid on production of cost-of-works certificates or on whatever the Government insist and that the grant could be made on an instalment basis. Unless this is done I cannot see how the small hotelier can get bridging finance.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: Other hon. Members have addressed themselves to the specific question of the desirability and practicability of grants being paid on a progress basis. I address two points to the Under-Secretary in view of his remarks in which he apparently suggested that he would amplify his statement later. Assuming that he rejects the proposal


that it is entirely reasonable for payment to be made on a progress basis and he intends to keep to the path he has already indicated, I simply ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to give an indication to the joint stock banks that the financing of expenditure of this nature which will be eligible for grant should be regarded by the banks as in the same priority category as expenditure by exporting industries.
The Government have introduced this system of grant on the view that it is in the broad national economic interest. It is perfectly reasonable therefore to ask the hon. Gentleman, when he is taking the categoric position he has taken up, if he has investigated whether the present control of credit by the Government will of itself frustrate the intentions of the Bill. I ask him to say that when a hotel owner goes to his bank manager and says, "I will be eligible for grant under the Tourist Development Bill" and can convince him that the grant will be 20 per cent., or 25 per cent. if he is in a development area, this may be treated as priority lending and not subject to all the rigours of restriction at present in force.
I should like the Under-Secretary to assure us that that will be the case and that the hotelier would not be met by the answer that unfortunately the President of the Board of Trade failed to tell the Chancellor of his intention and that the bank manager has to act under the instructions of the Chancellor. This is not by any means the kind of marginal point it may appear to be. While the payment is spread over a period it would be a great help to the hotel owner if he could have 25 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the total expenditure regarded as priority borrowing. Then he would have to persuade his bank manager only to lend him the balance over a shorter period.
In other words, he would not only be taking 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. out of the area in which he has to persuade the bank manager that he can allow him the credit, but he could take it out right at the beginning of his borrowing and, therefore, his task of persuading the bank manager to grant him the credit would not only be restricted to a smaller amount

but, which is more important in these days, would be restricted to a shorter period.
I shall be a little less aggrieved if the Minister adheres to his decision about the payment of grant only on completion but makes it clear that because it is the Government's view that this expenditure should be encouraged they have taken steps to ensure that the Treasury knows what the Board of Trade is about.

Sir J. Gilmour: If benefit is to be derived from the Bill, it must help not only the large hotels but the small ones. It is in that category of hotel that the Amendment will do so much harm. The Highlands and Islands Development Board is building hotels in the Highlands and, I imagine, will be able to draw Government finance for the building of such hotels. Alongside, somebody in private enterprise may be seeking to build a small hotel but will not be able to obtain the same facilities. This will put smaller private developers at a disadvantage. I believe that hotels will not be built in such areas if the Amendment is carried.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does not the Minister appreciate that, as drafted, the Amendment is useless. If the expression:
after the completion of the hotel
is taken literally, it could mean 50 years afterwards. Why was not a phrase such as:
a reasonable time after the completion of the hotel
sought to be inserted? I do not think that any bank manager advising my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davies) would regard it as much security if he was presented with a Clause of this type. Payment could be delayed. This is typical of this Government. They are already writing their 1975 election manifesto so that they can say what they have given away without saying what they deducted before they gave. I ask the Minister to make it clear that:
after the completion of the hotel
means a reasonable time afterwards. In a building contract that is a maximum of six months.

Mr. Gower: The incorporation into the Bill of the Amendment will impose a


severe limitation on the use to which the Bill will be put and on the value of the grants which will be taken up. The global sum will be severely restricted. A severe limit will be imposed certainly in Scotland and Wales and probably in peripheral areas of England. This will mean that most of the hotel building which will benefit from the Bill will be concentrated in the Greater London area and in one or two traditional places where the large companies are likely to embark upon developments.
If this is the Government's intention, they should have made it clear at the outset. By setting up three separate boards they have given the impression that there is to be a lot of hotel development all over the United Kingdom. I fear that if the Amendment is carried the total amount of benefit accruing from the Bill will be minimised and that the overall benefit will not be considerable outside a few parts of England. In Scotland and Wales, except for places like Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff, very little use will be made of the powers and benefits conferred by the Bill. The Government are being unreasonable in insisting on this wording. This is completely contrary to all normal engineering and building practice.
How on earth does the Minister expect a developer to proceed with such a project, after carefully estimating the probable cost and finding that marginally it is likely to be an economic proposition with the benefit of the grant, under the very loose wording? The Amendment says that he shall receive nothing until an unnamed date after the hotel's completion. In those circumstances, the developer is in an invidious position. He must from time to time meet the expenses of the building or engineering firms he employs. If the grant is to be of real use it should be available proportionately at the same stages as he must meet his obligations to the builders he employs. This is reasonable building and engineering practice, and the Government are putting something in the Bill that is completely at variance with normal practice in these industries. They are reducing to absurdity the value of the benefits in the Bill, and I implore the Minister to alter it.

Mr. Buchan: I listened with great interest to the debate. Some of it covers

earlier ground in Committee, but some of it is fresh and valuable and interesting.
I should like to clear up one point for the good name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). He said in Committee, in not voting for the Amendment, that the Minister of State had gone more than half way to meet the argument put forward. The other half was the Minister's promise to look at certain aspects that had been raised, and we have done this.
I regret to inform the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that we find insuperable difficulties in the way of carrying out both the suggestion in the Bill and his proposals for Clause 8. First, it is extremely difficult in the instalment method to safeguard against the misuse of public funds. If repayment were required in the event of the hotel not being completed or, when completed, not complying with the requirements of the grant, the tourist boards would probably be in the position of unsecured creditors, and if things went wrong they would be in a disadvantageous position in relation to other creditors.

Mr. Emery: How would the Government be in a different position from commercial undertakings advancing money to meet set payments? The banks make certain that they are not unsecured creditors. How are the Government in a different position from the banks, which make part-payment to meet ordinary building contracts in the same circumstances?

Mr. Buchan: We are concerned with the public purse. In making such a loan a bank would have to carry out from point to point and from customer to customer the right kind of examination of the customer's viability. We are offering 20 per cent. This removes the reason for the payment of instalments, because of the existence of an amount of capital. If we were to do what the hon. Gentleman suggested, the boards would have to examine the creditworthiness of each applicant and look at the viability of each project.
We have been told in Committee and here that we must leave the industry to private enterprise, yet here the Opposition want to involve us in an authoritarian


requirement that the boards shall be strictly satisfied on the nature and good prospects of a hotel's completion. Under Part II it would be an intolerable burden on the tourist boards. There would be enormous delay in making grants and loans if the boards were to carry out viability studies for such projects on every single occasion.
10.30 p.m.
Another point of difficulty is that the board before making the grant would have to be satisfied that the hotel complied or would comply with the requirements of the Bill. We remember discussing this in Committee, and the number of criteria which are laid down. Before the hotel was complete, the board would have had to be sure it satisfied the requirements of the Bill, not only as to physical characteristics but in the mode of operation—how the hotel would be run—and, if the grant were to be paid by instalments, the board would have to rely merely on undertakings given by the applicant, and might well feel it could not be satisfied with those without detailed investigation, amounting almost to investigation of the character standing of the applicant.
The next point was raised first, I think, by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and then by others, on the financial side. I have taken his point. He wants me to make sure that the Chancellor knows what we are doing in this Bill. Of course the Chancellor knows what we are doing in this Bill. However, I have taken note of the hon. Member's interesting point, whether we should regard this as a priority category, as with exporting industries. I will personally follow up the pressure he has put on this and have a look at that kind of equality of treatment in this way to see what thinking can be done on it.
On the financial side, we have to remember that we are dealing with a 20 per cent. grant. In other words, there is no reason why progress payment should not be made from the capital which the person providing the hotel has in any event to contribute. He has to have at least 80 per cent. of the eligible cost of the project. Progress payments of one kind and another are unlikely to exceed this proportion of the total cost. In most construction, payments are not paid to the contractor till some time after completion, and therefore I think the necessity is in any case not present when it is a 20 per cent. grant which is involved. If the person providing the hotel is unable to find the whole or the balance of the capital, loans are available under Clause 14, and loans can be made by instalments. In any case, of course, it would involve examination of creditworthiness, viability, and so on.
It seems to me that there is an absolute, coherent, and incontestable argument against retention in the Bill of the Amendment made to it in Committee and the inclusion in the Bill as it now stands of the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
Many hon. Members raised the question of delay. It is always delays by public bodies which hon. Members are worried about. Any payments will be subject to exactly the same kind of thing which happens in relations between industry and the Board of Trade and I.D.C.s. What would cause delay would be to make them subject to a viability study in order that the board could pay by instalments as asked for here. The Bill as it stands and the Amendment now proposed would bring about delay rather than the speed and urgency which, it is said, are desired. We want this operation to be done quickly.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 49 in page 6, line 29, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 52, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), in page 7, line 21, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Buchan: The House will recall that our original proposals for a scheme of assistance to hotels, outlined in the White Paper "Hotel Development Incentives" was limited to hotels which will have at least 10 letting bedrooms after completion of the work for which grant is claimed. This requirement was reflected in the Bill as originally drafted. During discussion in Committee, an Amendment to reduce the lower limit from 10 to five letting bedrooms was carried. The Government cannot, however, accept this very considerable extension of the scope of the Hotel Development Incentives Scheme and Amendment No. 49 would accordingly restore the 10 bedroom minimum requirement.
I remind the House of the purpose of this assistance. We have stressed throughout that it is an immediate and temporary scheme. We need a substantial increase in hotel accommodation, especially hotel accommodation for overseas visitors. That was the starting point. During 1968, the number of visits to the United Kingdom by people from other countries rose to nearly 5 million. During the first four months of this year, the number of foreign visitors arriving in this country was 740,000, an increase of 20 per cent. on the first four months of last year. We could not secure that very large increase in accommodation needed to deal with this situation with a scheme in which the resources were devoted to encouraging the provision of bedrooms in penny numbers.
We want to encourage the expansion of accommodation and we have heard the argument, indeed, that the 10 bedroom minimum is a modest enough target as it is. We would have preferred in some ways a higher figure but did not adopt one because of the problems this might have raised in rural areas. It might have impeded the development of accommodation

in rural areas. There are certainly difficulties in relation to that kind of development but a five bedroom limit is no target at all.
It is reasonable to say that, at the 10 bedroom level, such a hotel represents a full-time business, even though a small one, requiring some staff, if only part-time, in order to operate efficiently and to supply reasonable visitor needs. If we were to accept the lower limit of five bedrooms, we would face the tourist boards with a very difficult problem. There would be the genuine hotel or guest house on the one hand and the private house taking in summer visitors as a sideline on the other. This was the background of much discussion in Committee. Studies carried out in the South-West showed the difficulties of making this distinction in the case of very small establishments. Every hon. Member knows the kind of difficulties involved.

Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman has referred to five-bedroom hotels. Is the grant to be given for five extra bedrooms? Does he really mean a 15-bedroom hotel with five extra bedrooms on the original 10? Or five extra bedrooms on the original 10?

Mr. Buchan: On that basis it would be a 10-bedroom hotel. There is a demarcation line between the two types of property, but we accept how useful is the supplementary sideline accommodation. In some ways, it is one of the amenities of our tourist trade, but it is not the purpose of that scheme to subsidise it. We have made clear the kind of hotel accommodation we want.
In one way, the smaller establishment will still benefit. A hotel which has five bedrooms at present will be able to qualify for extension grant under Clause 8 by building on five more bedrooms. I am sorry that I misunderstood the point raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). If a five-bedroom hotel extends to 10 bedrooms, it will benefit. If that involves the enlarging of the catering side, the lounge and so forth, the extra expenditure on these facilities will also count for grant.
This is a short-term scheme. In the present priorities, the Government could not justify a scheme designed to devote


considerable resources—and they are considerable—of money and manpower to the assistance of very small projects which could not make a substantial contribution to the urgent need for more hotel accommodation.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister have another look at the fact that Clause 7 not only governs grants under Clause 8 but under Clause 9 too? Clause 9 relates not to the provision of additional bedrooms but to the installation of fixed equipment specified in Schedule 3. The provision of a 20 per cent. grant for fixed equipment, such as additional bathrooms, lavatory fittings and central heating, would go some way to compensate for the withdrawal of investment allowances, which hit the smaller hotel establishment so hard.
There is a strong case for having a different limit for the number of bedrooms as the qualification for grants for extensions and additions and the installation of new fixed equipment. I take the point, reluctantly, about disqualification for grant in relation to new hotel bedrooms. There are many hotels with six, seven, eight or nine bedrooms which would benefit from a grant to assist them install equipment set out in the Schedule. I hope that when the Government introduce a further Bill, or in another place, they will look hard at the fact that Clauses 8 and 9 relate to two entirely different sorts of expenditure, and there may be a case for having different qualifications governing the expenditure under them.

Mr. Gower: One of the useful improvements which we effected in Committee was a reduction from ten to five in respect of the number of new bedrooms. When the Minister says that this is unduly low I would point out that there is still preserved in the Bill a minimum requirement of 25 in the Greater London area. Ministers are already adopting a "metropolitan" attitude to these problems. They think in terms of the big developments, which are undoubtedly very useful, but if we look for dynamic growth in the industry we must look beyond the traditional areas of Greater London and the fashionable resorts. We can foresee much more spectacular growth, proportionately, in places

like the Lake District, East Anglia, the Broads and parts of the Thames and Scotland and Wales, which have not been fashionable in the past.
It is in these areas where we can hope for much more useful local growth, perhaps in the form of numerous small units. I cannot see why the Minister should suggest that only by having a small number of large developments can we get dynamic growth. Surely significant and rapid growth could be achieved by a larger number of small developments dispersed throughout the country? It would be far more healthy for the industry if that were the case. It has been one of the weaknesses of the industry that benefits accrued to limited areas, often only London, and seldom to other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be retrograde to reverse the most useful alteration we effected in Committee, reducing the requirement outside Greater London to five bedrooms. It may seem a small matter to the Minister, but I assure him that in some parts of the United Kingdom an additional five bedrooms in a small hotel or in a public house providing residential accommodation is a most useful addition and could lead to further future development. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: I appreciate the reasonableness of having a minimum level below which grant shall not be paid. I know of people who have come to Cornwall from the North who have said to me, "I have three bedrooms to let and cannot make a living." My answer has been, "You do not expect to make a living with three bedrooms. You may be able to use the money to pay the rent." Probably 10 bedrooms is too low a level at which to start.
There are certain anomalies involved, and I hope that the Minister will check my mathematics. If one starts with no hotel at all, with no bedrooms, and then builds 10 bedrooms, I assume that one is eligible for grant. If one starts off with five bedrooms and then adds five bedrooms, one is eligible for grant on both counts. But if one starts with eight existing bedrooms and adds four to bring the number of bedrooms up to 12, one gets no grant although one has more bedrooms. Although 12 bedrooms make a


more economically viable unit than 10 bedrooms, I am perplexed that in the last example grant should not be payable.
On the point that was raised about the application of the regulation to Clause 9, I am advised by hoteliers in Cornwall that the minimum of £1,000 for fixed equipment is unrealistic. In Cornwall it is unlikely that the fixed equipment in five bedrooms would amount to £1,000. It might amount to that figure in London at plumbing and building prices obtaining in the capital, but that would not be the figure in Cornwall. A figure of £500 would be a more reasonable level on that account.

Mr. Evelyn King: I must contest what has been said on the matter of principle, and would also refer to a point of ambiguity.
It has been said that that provision might not help rural areas. I suggest that it certainly will help them. I am concerned with places a little different from rural areas. The place that is most in my mind in this connection is Weymouth, which is typical of similar places.
Weymouth in winter has a population of something like 40,000. In summer it increases possibly to 110,000 or 120,000. I have not the precise figure in my head, but I should not be surprised to learn that of the additional 60,000 or 70,000 people who go into the area in summer probably half go into hotels with less than 10 bedrooms. It is not a rural problem. It is a problem that affects every seaside place which is dependent on the tourist industry. Nowhere more than in Weymouth is the industry urged to modernise and to grow. The Clause has been referred to as a metropolitan clause. It is certainly a disappointing one to the people of Weymouth and similar places.
The Minister did not reply to the points made about amenity. The situation is most ambiguous. The provision refers to a hotel with not less than five bedrooms, but the operative words are "as from its opening". A hotel with five bedrooms which proposed to have nine bedrooms would not be eligible. I do not know what will happen to a hotel with five bedrooms which proposes to extend to ten or twelve bedrooms. I hope that the Minister will clear the point. I should not have thought that Clause 8

over-rode Clause 7. Judging from the opening words of Clause 8, certainly it does not override Clause 7. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to answer that point.
There will be terriffic disappointment with the Bill throughout seaside resorts on the South Coast which are small in size but immensely important to those who live in them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing an Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. King: With respect, what I said was directly relevant to the Amendment. I was pointing out the fatal results of confining the benefits of the Bill to the larger places, and it is with them that the Amendment deals specifically.
I hope that the Minister will answer the question as it should be answered.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We had a very full debate in Committee about the number of letting bedrooms which should qualify for grant, and many hon. Gentlemen opposite found the arguments persuasive. On this Amendment, we defeated the Government in Committee and, as a result, reduced the number of qualification bedrooms from 10 to five. I do not think that we would have succeeded in doing that unless we had been appealing to hon. Gentlemen opposite on a matter which they also recognised as having a very special argument.
In Committee, the Government's argument was one solely of increased finance. But it is quite clear that it is essential to create the right market for mergers in small hotels. If it is desirable for small hotels to merge, those with five or six bedrooms must be given every opportunity to increase their bedrooms to 10 or 12. There is no reason why they should not be able to achieve that objective, providing that we decide that the lower criteria shall be five instead of 10.
This is not a matter which affects only seaside towns. In the Lake District and other parts of the countryside the great majority of small hotels have between five and 10 letting bedrooms. Two requests are made of them. The first is to increase the number of bedrooms


overall, and that is of the greatest importance if we are to have the diversification of tourist traffic from overseas throughout the nation. We are seeking to encourage British people to take their holidays at home and to attract overseas visitors, and we want them all to go far and wide, whether it be to Thanet, Cornwall, Aberystwyth, Scotland, or the Lake District. They will need small modern hotels. For a hotel with eight or 10 bedrooms, it will be necessary to convert some into modern bathrooms and then extend. It is when such an establishment extends that it is met with the position that, as from opening, it must have the qualification of 10 bedrooms. Therefore, it is important to have the lower limit in order to secure the expansion sought by the Government in the Bill.
Any further argument would be repetitive. There are two points: the mergers which are essential, and the modernisation which is necessary. If we are to achieve an effective pattern throughout the country, we must encourage the small hotel to grow.
The House will be taking a retrograde step if it overthrows the careful concern, thought and vote of the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Buchan: With the leave of the House. I intervene only briefly because I deployed my argument at the beginning.
I do not think that we can describe this as a metropolitan Clause, which was the description given to it by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). We make the clear distinction that in the Greater London area the minimum requirement will be 25 bedrooms. We make this clear distinction, so in that sense it is not a metropolitan Clause.
We are aware of the importance and value of the smaller hotels and the importance and value of the merger concept put forward by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). But we are facing a situation in which we have to allocate our resources most intelligently. In this respect, my hon. Friend, in Committee, said:
Given that there are limits on public expenditure and that we cannot expect a vast expenditure under the Bill, what are the priorities?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Standing Committee E, c. 338.]

At that time I noted that there was widespread agreement that this was the nub of the problem. Clearly, expansion of that kind will impose limitations upon other aspects of the scheme. I am pleased that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so enthusiastic in their desire for the expansion of public expenditure, but this is the consequence.
I accept that there will be the kind of anomaly suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). But we are saying that criteria have to be laid down to bring about expansion. Therefore, we think that it is correct that there should be a greater expansion figure than five and that it should be related to the business type of hotel which can create the accommodation that is needed now. The figure of 10 has its origins in this business sense.
I recognise that on the borders there will be apparent anomalies, but this is not a real anomaly because we are laying down as the minimum expansion five bedrooms. In this case it does not meet the criteria of expansion. This is the reason for rejecting it.

Mr. Evelyn King: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Buchan: I have finished.

Mr. King: Mr. Kingrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has finished.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 6, leave out lines 33 to 41 and insert:
(b) that breakfast and an evening meal are provided on the premises for persons staying at the hotel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it might be convenient to discuss the Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out 'provided on the premises' and insert 'available on request'.
Amendment No. 47, in page 6, line 25, at beginning insert:
'Except in the case of an establishment recognised by a Tourist Board as a self-catering establishment, which need not comply with paragraphs (d) and (e) of this subsection'.
Amendment No. 58, in page 13, line 37, Clause 16, at end insert:
'"hotel" includes a motel or self-catering establishment'.


and Amendment No. 93, in page 13, line 45, Clause 16, at end insert:
'"provided", in relation to any meal, means that such meal shall be available on request at reasonable hours for the provision of such meal'.

Mr. Rodgers: Amendment No. 50 restores the Bill to the form which we felt was most suitable.
Firstly, I want to make one point which repeats what was said by my hon. Friend in dealing with Amendment No. 49. It has been said today, as was said in Committee, that although public funds are being made available, they are certainly not available in unlimited amounts to replace necessary and desirable private investment.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) emphasised the importance of leaving it to the private investor and not introducing public capital because, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, sometimes the risk is greater.
The object of the Bill is not to provide funds of an unlimited kind to all those who might provide accommodation. The specific purpose is to put the money where we judge it is most needed. I emphasise that point, which I made in Committee, because we are to some extent working in the dark.
11.0 p.m.
The information that we have about the tourist industry is limited. We hope that we shall obtain more as a result of the Bill. It is a speculative judgment about what tourists need most. Our best judgment on the available evidence is that what people going to hotels, perhaps with their families, need most is a certain sort of accommodation which is not being provided. Our job is not to do with public funds what the private investor can do. Our job is not to provide accommodation simply because there is some need for it. Our job is to put the money where it is most needed. We take the view that it is most important that breakfast and an evening meal should be provided on the premises for people staying at an hotel.
I emphasise again that that does not mean that self-catering hotels do not have a rôle to play. It does not mean that the hotel industry is not changing. But here and now, for a short scheme, as a shot-in-the-arm, our best judgment is that this

is where the money is most needed. No evidence has been produced to show that we are wrong. If the money was unlimited, if public expenditure was of no account to the Opposition, or to us, either, we might consider extending the scheme to provide grants and loans for anybody who would benefit from them, for anybody who would like them. But, given limited resources, our objective is to put them where they are most needed, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that this happens.

Mr. Gower: Have the Government made any inquiries into the proportion of visitors to hotels, particularly in London, who take their evening meal in the hotel? I imagine that the figure is quite small.

Mr. Rodgers: We have made some inquiries, but, as I have said, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that a certain proportion do, and that over the next few years the proportion may not decline. It may do so. In Committee we talked about the family man who turns up with his family at an hotel at eight o'clock at night. He wants to settle down. He wants a meal. Unless we make this provision, we may find that we are helping to put money into accommodation which will be built in any case, and, secondly, that we will not meet the demand as we see it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is contrary to what the Minister said in Committee. He said then:
The hon. Gentleman had an important point when he was talking about the meaning of 'availability' and asking whether only hotels which, as it were, provided an evening meal as a part of a contract, with an all-inclusive charge, would be eligible. This is not the case, and I would agree with him that it would be unreasonable to make as a condition of help under the Bill that those who stayed at such hotels had to eat meals which they might not want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 17th April, 1969, c. 375–6.]
Surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that the availability of meals is ample, and that one does not have to provide them?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot concede that, though I realise that it is the burden of the Amendment to my proposed Amendment. I do not think it would be satisfactory if meals were brought in on a


tray, as might be the case, or, alternatively, if people turned up at a hotel and were told that if they walked 100 yards down the street they could get a meal which would be charged on their bills. That would not be satisfactory.
I am not saying that some people may not be content with that. What I am saying is that, on the best assumptions that we can make, this will not meet the need where the need is greatest. I must put it to the hon. Gentleman that the effect of his proposed Amendment to my Amendment, that the words "provided on the premises" be omitted, would mean that meals could be provided at a cafe down the street, or brought in for the convenience of guests. In other words, we would not have an hotel as we know it now.
I concede that as time goes on it may well be that the need for accommodation will change. It may be that in two or three years' time there will be no wish to renew the provisions of Part II of the Bill. It may be that investment in hotels, which is growing rapidly, will have reached the point at which there will be no wish to use the powers given by the earlier part of the Bill to continue an hotel investment scheme. Alternatively, it may be that on the available evidence what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting will most meet the need at that time.
Therefore, if there is to be a further scheme, it could be a scheme other than the scheme proposed here. But, that having been said, and considering that the provisions of the Bill and of this Clause are for a short period, I would ask the House to accept the Amendment in my name and to reject the others.

Mr. Costain: This Amendment is just typical Socialism. Whitehall knows best. Does not the Minister appreciate that there are many country hotels, and indeed hotels in towns, where the residents just do not want to have meals in the hotel? There may be in a village a very popular and well-known restaurant. They may have come to that village in order to stay at the hotel and go out to dinner in this special restaurant, and I can think of one in my constituency. Why should the Government say that the hotelier shall be compelled, if he accepts

a grant, to prepare meals every night when he knows that the meals are not going to be eaten? Is he doing something to help pig food? It is really stupid. What will happen if he goes on cooking food that is never eaten, and for how many years must this go on before Whitehall sees sense? That is the point behind my Amendment, and surely the Minister must see the sense of it.

Mr. Pardoe: I want to say a few words about the extension of self-catering holidays, and the application which this has to this Amendment. I cannot see that the provision of an evening meal is a necessary one, or particularly in the case of the tremendous extension of self-catering holidays in the West Country, one that is applicable to that area in the least.
If I may make rather a semantic point, I see real difficulties about the problem of defining the words "evening meal." I happen to have had, in connection with the Licensing Act, the most appalling case which has run on for ages between one Newquay hotelier, the police and the justices, about what constitutes an evening meal.
The hotelier was serving chicken legs in a bar, and this apparently does not come within the terms of the supper licence. The whole case hinged on whether a chicken leg, even in the bar, was an evening meal or not.
The only definition, which arises out of a decision of the Lord Chief Justice in 1964, is that a meal under the terms of the Licensing Act constitutes a sandwich, a beetroot and pickles. That is the only case so far that has decided this. The Home Office, in correspondence with me, have quite naturally refused to interpret the law. I do not blame them for this. They are not entitled to do so. I found that the Act defines table meals, but makes no definition of what constitutes substantial refreshment.
I should like to know exactly what this Government Amendment means when it talks about an evening meal. Is it going to be satisfactory to provide a sandwich, a beetroot and pickles?

Mr. Rees-Davies: To me, one thing is plain, and that is that we have had a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer from the Minister with respect to this matter. I have not myself said this to him in the


course of the debates that we had in the Standing Committee, nor indeed on the Floor of the House, but I will take a little time to develop the reason why I say it because Part II of the Bill deals with a problem as important as Part I, and although we come to the main burden and tenure of the arguments only on this series of Amendments, we have already debated this Bill for some eight hours yesterday and some five hours today. I will show why the Government proposal is unsatisfactory, certainly for the hotel industry.
To say that one can have the grant only if one provides breakfast and an evening meal—this is not a discretionary grant but an absolute one to which one is entitled—is not to lay down a definitive criterion. There is no obligation to provide a good quality breakfast and evening meal. The Bill does not say that one must provide a lounge or dining room, although that is what the Government are implying. It was wrong for the Minister to say that one could not receive the grant if one supplied an evening meal on a tray. Indeed, one can provide not only breakfast but an evening meal on a tray. The Government Amendment proposes to
… leave out lines 33 to 41"—
lines containing a sensible provision, to which I will refer
and insert—
(b) that breakfast and an evening meal are provided on the premises for persons staying at the hotel".
It does not suggest that they must be in a separate part of the premises; which means that breakfast and an evening meal can be provided in the bedroom, which is on the premises, to persons staying at the hotel. Thus, by failing to listen to the arguments which my hon. Friends adduced in Committee and by obstinately wishing to reinsert the new subsection (b), the Government are being totally inflexible.
In Committee I drew attention to the position which obtains in modern England. Many people who stay in hotels outside London want breakfast but often do not want an evening meal, although they may wish to have the opportunity of obtaining an evening meal at a suitable place and to a suitable extent. For this reason my hon. Friends propose Amendment No. 93, which seeks to define

"provided" for this purpose. The Amendment says:
… insert 'provided' in relation to any meal, means that such meal shall be available on request at reasonable hours for the provision of such meal.
The Government have indicated that they are not willing to accept our proposal for there being, on request, the provision of an evening meal as well as the statutory imposition of providing breakfast.
In any event, the Government should have left the Bill as it was, since the words which the Government seek to delete are:
(b) that the persons staying in the accommodation are provided either with breakfast or with self catering facilities on the premises whereby they may easily obtain breakfast. …
The Bill goes on to provide, with discretion to the tourist board concerned
(c) that suitable provision is made both structurally and otherwise to ensure the provision of meals either on the premises or nearby or with self catering facilities in such manner as in all the circumstances the Tourist Board shall think fit. …
After considerable debate, the Committee inserted those words for a number of reasons.
11.15 p.m.
There are four classes of accommodation with which we are concerned. The first, and the one of overwhelming importance to the Government's strategy, is the city or metropolitan hotel in London and the main cities where there is great demand for lower-priced accommodation. We want to avoid the provision of large lounges and dining rooms today, and those who have seen what has happened in France and on the continent generally—and in the United States—know full well that they do not provide any dining room at all. They provide first-class bedrooms, with bathrooms, and the opportunity to meet one's friends in the bedroom, and when one wants a meal it can be served in the bedroom or in an adjacent room nearby.
It is said that we want accommodation in London which is cheap. If so, then why waste money and space on this accommodation for dining? Why not use it for the modern bedrooms, thereby increasing the ever-growing demand for them?
Secondly, there are the country hotels and every hon. Member knows that the new ones being built are mostly motels.


Whoever heard of a built-in restaurant being provided in those? All one needs is space for one's car, your bed, and your breakfast, and that can be provided, as it is, in some place in the grounds. Usually, it is a restaurant, and very often people prefer to go into the adjacent accommodation which may, or may not, be associated with the project.
Thirdly, there are the camps and, as an example, they have arranged at Butlin's for another 1,000 units in order to allow the Dutch operators coming in to fit in a considerable number of people. We have to remember that these people are on the move. They go from one Butlin camp to another. All they want is accommodation and breakfast, but not accommodation for an evening meal in the traditional sense and, so long as it is provided if needed, it is not necessary to have it as part of the contract.
Then, lastly, what about the large amount of self-catering facilities? If there is accommodation, why cannot we allow people to do their own catering if they so desire? We have not sufficient money for this dining accommodation which makes one think of the old Grand Hotel at Bournemouth, where one gets the orchestra as well. We want to go forward into the modern age, and the most unfortunate answer that the Minister has made in this part of our discussions was when he said that the information about this is scanty and meagre. It may be scanty and meagre in the Board of Trade, but it is not in the British Travel Association and it is not meagre among our leading hoteliers. If the Minister would care to discuss this with the leading hotels, the Trust Houses, the Maxwell Joseph group and so on, they would tell him that the day of the large lounge or restaurant has gone.
The way in which this Amendment is set may mean that these groups will get round it. I hope that they will because we want the maximum variety of good quality accommodation in this country. We shall not succeed in getting it—we shall not have the variety which we need—either by this Amendment or by what the Government want. We shall only succeed in damaging this industry by not giving it the opportunity, with speed and expedition, which would enable it to meet the competition of which others have

spoken and which is absolutely essential for the development of the industry. We very much regret the Minister's rejection of the Amendments which were carried in Committee, and the fact that he has not even tried to meet us in the very limited manner through the Amendment which we tabled to his own Amendment. We are in a situation which we hope will be remedied before the Bill reaches the Statute Book.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said. He said that the hotel industry is changing and the needs of tomorrow may be different from those of today. But this Bill deals essentially with the situation as we judge it today. Any information which the B.T.A. has obtained is equally available to us in deciding what sort of accommodation is needed at present.
In a sense, he unwittingly gave the game away when he said that most new hotels are motels. The place in which to put public money is not where private finance is already providing accommodation but where, on the evidence available, more accommodation is needed. Private finance may be falling behind because the returns on capital are not enough. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible to put public money where there is evidence that it is most needed.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Trust Houses have recently established at Connemara in Eire a magnificent hotel with capital advantages bestowed by Eire. This has not been done in this country and there is little indication that Trust Houses would be willing to do so in the present position.

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Member suggests that there is not much motel development in this country I am surprised. Trust Houses announced good results last week and the motel industry is not doing badly. We want to put the money where it is most needed. One might logically argue that there should be no Part II to the Bill. However, so long as there is, there are limits to public expenditure and we have to narrow the area. I think we have done so in the right way and our Amendment should be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

GRANTS FOR EXTENSION OR ALTERATION OF EXISTING HOTELS

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 139, in line 35, leave out from 'section' to end of line 38.

Mr. Pardoe: Clearly there is some difficulty in differentiating between expenditure on provision of additional bedrooms when the total plan takes into account conversion of existing accommodation other than bedroom accommodation. To give an example, in Cornwall there has been a drift from the land, which will undoubtedly continue, and many farms are being converted into hotel accommodation. This is an excellent way of using farm buildings of farms which have been amalgamated. There is the example of a farmhouse which was converted into an hotel with the minimum required number of bedrooms and the farmer wishes to convert the adjoining barn into additional accommodation. He may create a certain number of bedrooms and a certain amount of other accommodation, such as a lounge. As the provisions of Clause 7(2) are also applicable to Clause 8, the provision of a lounge would be necessary for him to qualify for a grant. Is it being suggested that the expenditure on converting that part of the barn that becomes lounge accommodation is not eligible for a grant, whereas that part of the expenditure incurred on converting part of the barn into bedroom accommodation is eligible?
I stress the distinction which is being drawn between grants for new hotels and grants for alterations to existing hotels. I take it that someone who builds an entirely new hotel from scratch will receive a grant on all the expenditure incurred on construction work, whether that expenditure has been incurred on the provision of lounge accommodation, television lounge, dining room, or whatever. Someone who alters or extends an existing hotel receives a grant only on the money expended specifically on the provision of bedroom accommodation. This is an anomaly as between the two types of development—the new hotel and the

existing one. It is an unfair distinction to be drawn.
I draw special attention to these final words in subsection (3):
expenditure which is not attributable to the provision of the bedrooms
Exactly what expenditure is attributable to the provision of bedrooms? Leaving out of account for the moment fixed capital equipment, is it right that the provision of a bathroom would be attributable? Provided that it was a bathroom in connection with a bedroom, a bathroom with a bedroom and built at the same time as a bedroom, would it be expenditure attributable to the provision of the bedroom? If a corner of a bedroom is partitioned off by a partition running from floor to ceiling, and if behind that partition there are a shower and lavatory, would that become separate accommodation? Would it not be attributable to the provision of a bedroom, or would it be? In the case of a bathroom, it is extremely important to get that clear, because I believe that expenditure on the provision of a bathroom is attributable to the provision of bedroom accommodation. I want encouragement to be given to the provision of private bathrooms, because this is the kind of accommodation which we want much more of.

Mr. William Rodgers: This subsection is not restrictive, but a reasonable safeguard against the possible abuse of the provisions of the Clause. As I said in Committee, it was included following advice we were given by someone in the industry when preparing our White Paper. We do not want to include requirements which would discourage the proper provision of new accommodation, but there are possibilities of abuse. For example, a hotelier might decide to designate five staff bedrooms as letting bedrooms with little or no expenditure on them. This would simply be a device to take advantage of the Bill when enacted, without providing more real accommodation. Alternatively, he might simply partition five double bedrooms into 10 single bedrooms, similarly not providing new accommodation within the purposes of the Act. The provisions in the Clause are generous. They are relevant to the purposes of the Bill, but this safeguard is necessary. It will not cause any embarrassment or difficulty to anyone genuinely wishing to make use of the powers.

Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful to the Minister, but it would seem that he is interpreting the words "existing accommodation in the hotel" in line 34 as being the conversion of existing bedroom accommodation. He mentioned converting staff bedrooms into letting bedrooms, and converting single bedrooms into two bedrooms. Is that so?

Mr. Rodgers: I gave an example of what might be the case. I would not place that interpretation on it. There are other circumstances in which it might be necessary to disallow the entitlement, but all genuine cases are included. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that provision of new bathrooms, for example, would be very relevant and central to the provision of new bedroom accommodation.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have two questions for the Minister. The first is semantic, but I hope not unimportant. Can he explain when an extension is not an alteration and when an alteration is not an extension? I do not understand the distinction, and it was for that reason that we put down our Amendment.
My second question arises from the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). Could the Minister go a little further in the assurance he has just given and say quite clearly that expenditure on providing a bathroom to go with a bedroom would attract help under the Clause? I think that he will agree that when more people are coming to this country, particularly from North America, who take bathrooms as an inevitable concomitant of a bedroom, it would be a nonsense to provide bedrooms without bathrooms in the 1970s.
It would be helpful if the Minister would say simply that the answer to my question is "Yes", that in the normal way the provision of a bathroom to go with a bedroom would attract the help.

Mr. William Rodgers: I cannot say that the answer is "Yes", because the purpose of the Clause is the provision of further bedroom accommodation. That is the purpose of the whole of Part II. It is not designed primarily for the improvement of existing accommodation. We recognise that a useful addition could easily be made to the number of letting bedrooms by the conversion of existing

accommodation in a hotel. There might be reading rooms or ballrooms, for example, that are no longer needed.
In this respect we are seeking to keep up with the times to a greater extent than some hon. Gentlemen have suggested on previous Amendments. The provision of additional bedrooms in this way would contribute to the purposes of the scheme and might provide useful accommodation. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would preclude the payment of any grant in the case where additional bedrooms were provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. I imagine that it was a probing Amendment and that he does not wish to press it. The Bill deals with further accommodation. We would like to see it provided wherever possible by the disposal of facilities that are no longer required.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

GRANTS FOR PROVISION OF CERTAIN FIXED EQUIPMENT

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'the last preceding' and insert 'a complete'.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider with it Government Amendment No. 54, in page 8, line 23, at end insert:
'but, in relation to an applicant who so elects, the period beginning with 1st April, 1969, and ending with the date of the commencement of this Act shall be treated as if it formed part of the preceding financial year and not of the financial year ending with 31st March, 1970'.
The Amendment is designed to meet wishes expressed in Committee, when we had a long discussion on a very reasonable point about when payments would be made, about the expenditure of £1,000 within a financial year. Whereas I cannot say that the Amendment will necessarily meet all the points made, particularly by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), I hope that it will help to some extent.
In re-examining this subsection we found that as it is drafted there is some risk that applicants might, in certain cases, lose their entitlement to grant for work carried out in a certain financial


year. This could occur if, for some reason, an applicant was not able to claim his grant in the year immediately following that in which the work was done—for example, in cases where there was delay in presentation of bills, or difficulty in establishing eligible expenditure. We discussed this in Committee. The Amendment removes this difficulty while at the same time preserving the essential purpose of this subsection, which is to limit entitlement to grant under this Clause to cases where the investment is at least £1,000 in a period of a year. I know that this is still a matter upon which we may wish to argue. The amount is still to be £1,000 in a period of a year. I believe that the Amendment is some advance.
Similarly, Amendment No. 54 seeks to alter subsection (4) to enable an applicant to elect that expenditure incurred in the period beginning with 1st April, 1969, and ending with the date of commencement of the Bill shall be treated as incurred in the financial year ending with 31st March, 1969, rather than in the year ending with 31st March, 1970. To those who may not have followed the proceedings on the Bill this may sound double Dutch but I give them my assurance that this represents some improvement and, on the whole, will be advantageous to those who may wish to claim grant.

Mr. Blaker: I welcome the Amendments which, as the Minister said, go some way to meet the points we made in Committee. Am I right in understanding that Amendment No. 53 allows an applicant to claim payment without waiting until the ensuing financial year? I do not think that that is its main effect but will it, incidentally, allow an applicant who has already spent more than £1,000, say, by July of any year to make a claim at once? If so, that will be of advantage in speeding up the reimbursement that he will receive.
The Minister explained the purpose of Amendment No. 54, which I also welcome. It is made necessary partly because the Government have changed their intentions on this point since they published the White Paper. They have altered the rules about eligible dates, and I welcome that. The Minister is right in thinking that his Amendments do not go the whole way. There is still the case where the person spends a sum over £1,000 and

although he expects that it will fall due within the financial year for reasons beyond his control it does not fall due in that time. There may be cases where unfairness results.
I hope that such cases will be few. I am sure that applicants will plan their expenditure as best they can to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill as it stands, which we recognise as an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 54, in page 8, line 23, at end insert:
'but, in relation to an applicant who so elects, the period beginning with 1st April 1969 and ending with the date of the commencement of this Act shall be treated as if it formed part of the preceding financial year and not of the financial year ending with 31st March 1970'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Clause 13

POWER TO MAKE LOANS

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 144, in page 11, line 2, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£50,000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment we can take the following Amendments:
No. 145, in page 11, line 3, leave out '£10,000' and insert '£25,000'.
No. 147, in line 16, leave out 'thirty' and insert 'twenty-five'.
No. 148, in line 18, leave out '£500,000' and insert '£350,000'.
No. 149, in line 20, leave out subsection (4).
No. 150, in line 29, at end insert:
Provided that the relevant Minister shall report the lending of any sum under this subsection to Parliament forthwith.
No. 151, in line 34, leave out 'twenty' and insert 'ten'.
No. 152, in line 35, leave out 'fifteen' and insert 'eight'.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Gourlay. I want to ask a few questions in connection with these Amendments. I should explain that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I tried to follow its proceedings with interest. I find it difficult


to understand the reasons for certain figures and restrictions in the Clause. The Amendments are concerned with various restrictions which the Government have placed on the freedom or flexibility of the Board towards loans for new hotel projects or extensions.
I find it difficult to understand why these restrictions were put in at all, when there is provision in one of the subsections we propose to remove that the Minister can exceed these by special direction and that any loans of any sort are subject to directions which may be made under Clause 18, by the Treasury at any time. If we assume that there must be restrictions, it is difficult to understand the figures the Government have put forward in this Clause.
The first two Amendments relate to the minimum figures at which loans can be given, and looking at the figures, I wonder why a minimum restriction was put in at all. The first figures relate to new hotels and it is stated that loans cannot be made unless the project, or the eligible figure, amounts to a total of £20,000. This appears to be an absurd figure, if it is meant to be a restriction of any kind. Under previous Clauses in the Bill, a new project must have at least five letting bedrooms; facilities to provide breakfast; facilities to provide meals and there must be a lounge. The structure must also be permanent. It is also indicated that eligible expenditure includes not only the building, but the fixed equipment in it.
I and my hon. Friends find great difficulty in envisaging any new hotel project including all these things which could be built at this time for less than £20,000. It seems an astonishing figure and if the Government mean this to be in some way a restriction on a board in giving loans, we wonder how the figure was arrived at and whether it is meant to be a restriction.
The second Amendment relates to the alteration or extension of a hotel. The Government have put in a minimum figure of £10,000 and this is intended for major reconstruction which would result in a hotel having all these facilities and fixed equipment. Can this be a serious figure? Is £10,000 a restriction, particularly when we bear in mind all the qualifications written into this Clause?

There is a provision that if a variation is required in the figure, there could be a direction from the Treasury, and under subsection (4) if the Minister is not satisfied that circumstances are normal, he can exceed 30 per cent. and make it 40 per cent. for a particular project. We have a provision in subsection (5) that if a loan is given for a new project, it must be paid off in not more than 20 years. That is a long time and I wonder if the Government envisage any circumstances in which a loan might be given for more than 20 years or, for a major reconstruction, for more than 15 years.
We can understand the Government's wish in some way to show that Government money is carefully allocated at a time of financial stringency when many business men are having to face harsh rules to obtain credit, but I suggest to the Minister that in seeking to impose many restrictions which appear to be largely meaningless, he is creating unnecessary bureaucracy and restriction which will have no meaning in practice.
For the maximum figure of £500,000 in this Clause we have suggested substituting £350,000 as being more realistic. The reason for our Amendments is to establish why the Government have put in these figures which in practical and normal circumstances would be meaningless as restrictions. Are the Government seriously suggesting that a hotel project could be envisaged today, in 1969, or in 1970, providing all these splendid facilities, five bedrooms, lounges, meals, facilities for breakfast, and for a figure of £20,000, while at the same time providing all the fixed equipment which is required for a hotel with five bedrooms and, indeed, all the facilities which are needed for residence in it?
11.45 p.m.
Quite frankly, I feel that, for the sake of sensible law, it would be better to have no restrictions at all than to have restrictions which certainly would appear in all practical circumstances to be largely meaningless. If the Government feel that there is reason in them, they have to remember that they have an escape Clause, Clause 18, which provides for directions by Ministers. What meagre restrictions there are can be removed or can be adjusted by direction under that Clause.
What we are trying to do by these Amendments is not in any way to hamstring the efforts of the board, hamstring giving assistance to small hotel projects, as opposed to large hotel projects. What we feel is that the restrictions under Clause 13 are meaningless in practice and will not be a deterrent in considering one case against another and would be much better removed. That is why we have proposed these Amendments.
I hope the Government can give some indication why they chose the figures they did and what meaning they will have in reality.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I echo everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has said so economically and so well. I support this series of Amendments for all the reasons he has put, and I would summarise them as follows. First, on grounds of economic reality. It is not reality, as my hon. Friend pointed out, to suggest that it is possible to build in this country at this time a hotel providing all the facilities required under this Bill for the sum of £20,000. It is not reality to insist upon that. The Government ought to explain why they have come down on this figure in particular. My own view is that we should not be providing this money at all, but if we are to provide it, let us at least make sure that it is provided in sensible fashion.
Secondly, alongside economic reality we ought to have financial prudence. If hotels are to be able not to repay loans for periods as long as 20 years, then, on the present economics of the hotel business, I wonder whether we are lending money to the right business in the first place. It seems to me, at a time when credit is short and profits ought to be high in a risky business of this kind, that the period of repayment should be substantially shorter than that indicated in the Bill.
Finally, we have put down an Amendment to leave out this obnoxious subsection (4) whereby the Minister is entitled, on his own discretion, apparently, to dip into public funds and bang up to a substantially higher figure the amount which can be lent—and we are here talking of very large sums of money indeed. Under Clause 13(3)(b) the figure for extensions and alterations can be as

high as £500,000, and, under subsection (3)(a), 30 per cent. of a large hotel can be a very large amount indeed. I say to the Minister that the fact that on occasion, when he feels it is warranted, the "relevant Minister" can simply dip into public funds and increase the loan when he wants, is not, to me, a happy one, but might improve a little in my eyes if the Amendment were accepted, namely, that when the Minister increases lending by his discretionary power he should report the sum to Parliament.
The Minister would be exercising a very large discretionary power and he should show cause for exercising it. There is nothing that I can discover in the Bill to make the Minister accountable for these exceptional sums that he would be lending. For reasons of economic realism and financial prudence and accountability to this House, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Pardoe: I speak only to refute the argument about the figures of £20,000 and £10,000. I have recently seen in my constituency a hotel, consisting, admittedly, of only nine bedrooms, which would not qualify at present. It has cost, from completely flat ground, including the cost of the land, to completion, with all the facilities, substantially less than £10,000 to build. The figure was, in fact, about £8,000. If we could not build hotels for this kind of figure in Cornwall then the Cornish hotel business would fail. If it cost substantially more than £10,000 in Cornwall to add five bedrooms we should not be able to make ends meet.

Mr. Buchan: I am pleased to note that, from time to time, hon. Members opposite change their mood. We usually find them moving Amendments which would increase public expenditure. This Amendment is refreshing because it would actually decrease it and they have indicated how it could be done, which is perhaps even more unusual for them.
We have been asked whether we are concerned with any particular criteria or whether the number has been pegged. The main point concerned the figure of £20,000 and has been partially answered already. I, too, have investigated this aspect. Although there will be variation, I think that the average cost of building per bedroom is about £4,000, varying according to circumstances of construction, land purchase, and so forth.
Quite apart from this, perhaps the most significant objection to the Amendment is that the figure of £20,000 was given in the White Paper and some hoteliers and developers may have acted in good faith on that basis and gone ahead with projects. The Amendment must be rejected, therefore.
The issues involved in Amendment No. 145 raise the same kind of principle. The minimum of £10,000 expenditure before loan assistance can be considered for existing hotels was set with regard to the fact that the qualifying extension under Clause 8 must consist of at least five additional letting bedrooms. This thinking was consistent and based upon a careful study and assessment of the situation. That Amendment must also fall, therefore.
Then there is the argument about Amendments No. 147 and No. 148, particularly concerning the sum of £500,000. I accept that a loan of this size—which will be exceptional—means that the project will amount to about £1·6 million in construction cost, the cost of purchasing and installing fixed equipment, and so on, on top of which will be the cost of land and the provision of unfixed equipment. Such a hotel, if in the luxury class, would be likely to have about 150 bedrooms, and, in the moderate range, perhaps 300 bedrooms. We expect that cases of such expenditure will be few. When such a project is launched those behind it would normally be capable of raising the money themselves.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Can the Minister say whether the new hotel groups which are to provide medium-price accommodation in London have any figures available? I understand the cost would be in the order of £1 million to £3 million per hotel to provide accommodation for 150 to 300 bedrooms. Are there any figures to show what would be the anticipated loan?

Mr. Buchan: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that; I cannot answer him now. It was necessary to set some maximum and £500,000 seemed a reasonable figure to cater for those odd, exceptionally large projects, justifying a loan from public funds. Hon. Members have resented the presence of subsection (4), but often we have to include these things in legislation to provide for exceptional cases. What we have in mind is where

a small enterprise may have special problems in raising money for a new hotel in the absence of existing chargeable assets.
The amount advanced would be subject to the maxima I have already mentioned. I see no objection to the tourist board setting out in its annual report the number of cases in which the provisions of the subsection had been operated. It would be difficult for the "relevant Minister" to report to Parliament forthwith about the lending of such money, because it would be pointless to make such a report without details of the projects, which would breach the confidence which must exist between the tourist board as lender and the applicant as the borrower. This is normal practice, applying to industrial matters.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the tourist board, in the annual report, could give the sums and the recipient?

Mr. Buchan: I would rather not make that commitment. I will look at the suggestion, but the boards have not been established yet, and we want to consider the kind of details that should be forthcoming. I am by instinct a believer in maximum information being made public, but we must keep in mind the caveat I have entered.
Dealing with Amendments No. 151 and No. 152, we have a reason for specifying different maximum periods. A new hotel is not earning during the construction period, which may be two or more years. There is also a build-up period before profitability is achieved. The maxium period for repayment of loans on new hotels may be longer by five years than the period for existing hotels. With existing hotels where loans would be given toward alterations or extensions, there is a necessity to provide immediate earnings for repayment and servicing of the loan. The repayment periods represent maxima. One hopes and expects that in most cases a tourist board would specify a shorter period, since many applicants would require shorter periods and would wish to free the assets of a hotel from all the encumbrances of loans and charges as quickly as possible. But I am opposed to reducing maxima, since it would impair the flexibility of the provisions on


loan assistance. It would also go back on the proposals in the White Paper which may have been acted upon in good faith by hoteliers and developers.

12 m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: There is one important point which the Minister has not mentioned. In Committee I drew attention to the question of what constituted a new hotel. I said
The word 'new' does not mean a freshly built hotel. It does not mean, as with a new egg, one which has been freshly laid. It merely means an alteration of the existing building. This again is not a matter on which I should press for a reply now, if it does not suit the Minister, but I hope that the situation will be clarified in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 6th May, 1969; c. 603–4.]
We drew attention to the fact that a new hotel as planned may be the conversion of an existing building to a new house. It then becomes a hotel which is a new hotel for the first time. This was the reason given for saying that the figure of £20,000 was too small. A "new" hotel presumably means what it says. It does not mean a freshly constructed one, but a hotel which has become a hotel for the first time.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member must make a distinction where alterations or extensions take place or where a new hotel has been created. I recognise the difficulties of definition. But the main definition is recognisable and in most cases there is no dubiety. We then say that any existing building which has not been used as a hotel should be considered in this way. I should not like to give an ex-cathedra, off-the-cuff statement on the matter. I will look into it, and perhaps the tourist boards will have to consider the matter.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We pointed out in Standing Committee that this Clause was the most important in the Bill from the point of view of its practical effect. I am indebted to my hon. Friends who moved Amendment No. 144 and I recognise the importance of not wasting public money.
In almost every European country today there is some means by which the hotel industry, in its need for rapid expansion, can call on loan facilities of a governmental nature as well as from private sources. This is particularly true

of the great Swiss hotel industry which is able to take advantage of special methods by which it can obtain the necessary loan capital. This is of even greater importance under the present Government since it is impossible to borrow money except at excessive rates of interest, in some cases amounting to as much as 14 per cent., which would make many propositions less than viable.
We feel that flexible criteria for loans should be carefully laid down, but there is no reason why substantial loans should not be obtained. If the Government were to give grants of 20 per cent. in respect of new hotels, together with a further 40 per cent. in special cases—in development areas it could be as much as 65 per cent. it could be regarded as reasonable, bearing in mind the capital which the industry itself would have to find.
It is important to ask what is meant by a "new" hotel. I said in Committee that, if we are to have speed of execution to obtain the extra 40,000 to 50,000 extra bedrooms which we require for the rapid development of tourism in the next three years, it cannot be done by seeking planning permissions, acquiring land and building new hotels with fresh bricks and mortar.
I said in Committee:
When I conceive the idea of a new hotel, my first thought is whether we can convert existing buildings into hotels. For example, I think that many of our historic homes may well become the leading hotels of the future. I know of one or two places, such as former working men's institutes and clubs, former nursing homes, and buildings of that kind, which could become new hotels. I hope, therefore, that this type of building will qualify for both grant and loan. I imagine that if, within the concept of a new hotel, they can change its use it will qualify as a new hotel. It is important that the position should be clearly understood by those who may wish to convert such buildings into hotels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th May, 1969; c. 603.]
I went on to deal with the fact that such a building would not be a freshly built hotel. I assumed that that was why one had a figure of £20,000 at the lower end of the scale.
I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to this matter, not only with a view to taking instructions for the purposes of Third Reading, but looking ahead to when the Bill goes to the other place. If the Government want to see the development of hotels in this country,


they must realise that it will not be done by the big groups in London alone. It can be done by the conversion of many existing buildings in country areas where it is hoped to meet the driving upsurge of modern tourism.
This will not cost the Government anything other than the facilities to ensure that there are fair loans for those willing to risk their capital in such ventures. I do not ask for the expenditure of public money, nor do I suggest that it should be given to anything other than a viable concern of a substantive nature.
I think that the Ministers have overlooked completely the passage which I have quoted, and I was not the only hon. Member to take up the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) raised it, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) touched upon other aspects of loans, and we all put down specific Amendments which were not called. I make no complaint about that, because we have had an admirable opportunity to ventilate the whole matter on this Amendment. I recognise entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and others have said about the need for care and the fact that it was not essential to contain this criterion in the Bill. They are right about that, but it has had at least one welcome effect if it has brought attention to the need to clarify the position and recognise that it is not just a question of thinking in terms of new bricks and mortar but of finding the alternatives which are essential for the sort of development the country needs if tourism is to expand.

Mr. Buchan: With the leave of the House, the hon. Gentleman referred to the borderline difficulties that there might be in deciding about an existing building which was to be converted. However, the use of existing buildings is covered in Clause 16(3), which says:
… references to providing a new hotel include references to providing it by converting into a hotel a building or buildings previously used for a different purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

REGISTRATION OF TOURIST ACCOMMODATION

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 15, line 19, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.

No. 64, in page 15, line 22, leave out 'Association' and insert 'Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Schedule 1

THE TOURIST BOARDS

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 18, line 39, leave out 'or fees and such' and insert 'fees or'.

No. 81, in page 20, line 11, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Schedule 2

ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF GRANT

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 20, line 18, after 'grant', insert 'from the Board'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 84.

Mr. Rodgers: The purpose behind these Amendments is to limit the power of requiring information and the power of entry and inspection so that, for example, only the Wales Tourist Board may require information about an hotel in receipt of a grant by the Wales Board and only a person authorised by the Wales Board may enter and inspect such an hotel. It is not intended that a board should be able to require information about, or enter and inspect, an hotel in receipt of a grant by another board.
This meets a point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in Committee. I hope, for that reason, that it will be acceptable.
Amendment No. 85 is again intended to clarify the situation. As this description of fixed equipment now stands in Schedule 3, it might be thought that the use of the word "bathroom" meant that


the equipment had to be installed in a bathroom in order to be eligible for grant under Clause 9. This is not the intention, and the Amendment clarifies the situation.

Mr. Blaker: I particularly welcome the way that the Minister of State put Amendment No. 83, since he said that it was a point which I had drawn to his attention in Committee and, therefore, he thought that it should be acceptable. I drew this to the attention of the Committee because it seemed particularly alarming that we might have a situation, as the Bill stood, where an inspector from the English Tourist Board could take upon himself the duty of inspecting premises in Wales and Scotland. That seemed a situation to be avoided at all costs, so I welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 84, in page 21, line 9, after 'made', insert 'by the Board'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Schedule 3

FIXED EQUIPMENT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT UNDER SECTION 9 OF THIS ACT

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 22, line 25, leave out 'Bathroom' and insert:
'Baths, showers, wash-hand basins, bidets'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 86, in line 1, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.

No. 88, in line 10, after 'business', insert:
'and for securing that the prices charged there for such accommodation are brought to the notice of persons seeking to avail themselves of it'—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

12.14 a.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have now spent almost 70 hours discussing the Bill, which I think is a measure of its importance and of the attention that the House was prepared to give to it. It is a better Bill for our discussion. I am sure that it will be greatly appreciated by the tourist industry and will do much to give an extra impetus to the growth which we have all seen and welcomed.
I do not intend on Third Reading to deal with any of the broad issues. But, in view of the particular points made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I think that I should say something about betterment levy. As there are some important points of concern to the industry, I should place the position clearly on record, though I do not suppose that on Third Reading we can go into all the details which may be of interest to the trade.
First, there is the question raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) during the Fourteenth sitting of the Committee when he said:
I had the impression that in the case of hotel extensions, there is to be no exemption for a small extension as there is in the case of an industrial building."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 8th May, 1969; c. 633.]
I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that his fears were groundless. A small extension to an hotel, and by this I take it the hon. Gentleman means an extension which increases the cubic capacity by less than 10 per cent., would not give rise to a liability for betterment levy. In this respect hotels are in precisely the same position as industrial buildings.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked:
… what is the position with regard to betterment levy in the building both of the new hotels and also for extending or altering existing ones?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th May, 1969; c. 621.]
First let us look for a moment at the position of a new hotel development. If an hotelier buys a piece of land at the current market price and builds on that piece of land a new hotel, he will not be liable for betterment levy. If, on the other hand, a hotel developer already owns a piece of land which he brought, say, 20 years ago as a green field and decides to apply for planning permission to build an hotel on the land, he will be liable to betterment levy. I think that the position is clear. That hotelier would be in the some position as an industrial developer.
Take also the case of an extension to an hotel which amounted to an increase of more than 10 per cent. in the cubic capacity of the hotel. Here again liability for betterment levy would arise, as it would in the case of an extension to an industrial building. The hotel developer


is therefore in precisely the same position as an industrial developer.
There is, however, one exception which I should make clear. In the case of extensions amounting to more than a 10 per cent. increase in cubic capacity an industrial developer may be able to postpone the actual payment of the betterment levy until he sells the building. He does not pay interest on the sum due in the meantime, but he will have to provide security in the form for example of a charge on the property. This is the only way in which the liability of a hotel developer differs from that of an industrial developer.

Mr. W. Baxter: Why has the figure been set at 10 per cent.?

Mr. Rodgers: The important thing is to draw a line between what may be regarded as a minor extension, and a major one, both for administrative purposes, and generally to enable the small man to have an easier passage than some of the larger developers. This is a reasonable provision. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend, in case he has it in mind to pursue this, that this is not something built into the Bill. It is therefore something which should be pursued in relation to betterment levy generally, and not in relation to any provision in the Bill.

Mr. Baxter: This is rather important. Is the 10 per cent. applicable to the grounds, to the buildings, and to the assets of the hotel, or to the practical buildings of the hotel?

Mr. Rodgers: I used the phrase "cubic capacity". That can apply neither to the grounds, nor to the value, but only to the total capacity of the buildings themselves. It is 10 per cent. of cubic capacity.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the criterion of a 10 per cent. increase in cubic capacity is reasonable for an industrial building, but that where we are inviting the extension and expansion of an hotel, and where, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we are giving specific grants for that purpose, one ought to consider reviewing what would be the appropriate percentage increase in cubic capacity?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think so.
If I may turn to the third point, again one which was pursued by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, perhaps I can deal with the argument that somehow the betterment levy takes away the value of the development. This is not the case at all, and I hope that it will not go on record as being so. May I take a project which involved the building of a large hotel on the site of one or two acres which are at present undeveloped.
Let us suppose—and we can take any range of examples but I will take this one—that the developer bought this field 20 years ago for £5,000, and its present value for hotel development is £25,000. These circumstances could give rise to an increase in value of £20,000, and on this betterment levy at 40 per cent. would be £8,000, subject to allowances and so forth. So the developer pays £8,000. He has to pay this whether he gets a grant or not. But if I may go back to our discussions in Committee, a hotel on this site might be of 100 bedrooms and might involve a cost of £500,000. This could attract grant of £100,000, and we must set the betterment levy of £8,000 against grant of £100,000. I think in that case there is a very considerable advantage in taking up the grant. The liability for betterment levy does not stem from taking up grant. One still pays the levy, but by taking up grant one might be £92,000 better off.
The hotel developer who takes up grant will always be in a better position than anyone taking up a form of development which is not grant-aided.
I hope that is helpful to hon. Members. These are not provisions included in the Bill, but I think it makes doubly clear, if there was doubt in anyone's mind, that the provisions of Part II are valuable in any circumstances. Of course, they could be spread more widely, but given the need to keep some check on public expenditure, and given the desirability of putting public money where private finance is not available to meet a perceived need, then I think the provisions of Part II are in all respects adequate.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Minister said that industry is entitled to defer payment in respect of betterment levy. Where the


Government is inviting development here of an urgent nature now, surely the hotel industry is going to receive pari passu the same treatment as industry by giving them the entitlement to delay the payment of betterment levy in order to secure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we pursue the question of betterment levy too far, we must remember that we are on Third Reading and that betterment levy is not covered in the Bill. I allowed the Minister to make reference to this, but we cannot pursue the matter on Third Reading.

Mr. Rodgers: Bearing in mind what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I have been seeking to say—and this was the nub of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman—is that the developer will be no worse off because of betterment levy if he accepts grant. That is the point which is relevant to the provisions of this Bill, and where I think it has been necessary to remove doubt in the minds of possible developers.
I do not think that this is an appropriate time to pursue the whole question of the future of betterment levy. No doubt there will be future debates when that can be considered. We are concerned for the moment with the provisions for hotel development, and here I hope I have satisfied any doubts which there may have been.

Mr. W. Baxter: Mr. W. Baxterrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood the Minister to have resumed his seat.

12.25 a.m.

Sir K. Joseph: We are grateful to the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking to make a statement on betterment levy. It is not possible for us to comment accurately or constructively on what he has said, but he has now given an opportunity for his statement to be analysed before the debates in another place, and for that we thank him.
We should also like to thank the Minister of State for his patience during the relatively long proceedings on this Bill. We sympathise with him for the relatively grudging attendance he has had from his colleagues, and for the very sparse speaking support he has had from them, both in Committee and on Report stage. I,

on the other hand, have had extremely able and vigorous colleagues, to whom I wish to express my gratitude, both in Committee and on Report.
It might be helpful for me to review, in the light of the alternatives open to the Opposition when the Bill was brought before the House, what has happened during the Measure's passage through the House.
My hon. Friends and I recognised, when the Bill was introduced, that there was some need for a degree of public co-operation with private enterprise in tourism. Having given that recognition, we spent the entire Committee and Report stages trying to put some constraint on the results of that recognition. Ideally, we would have liked to have seen the voluntary British Travel Association allowed to continue and to conduct the tourist promotion that we all want to see. However, we reckon that, on balance, the sections of private enterprise concerned with tourism require a body of considerable standing to unlock the potential of the tourist industry, and many public bodies are concerned with the infrastructure of tourism.
We did not think that it would be possible for a voluntary B.T.A., a company limited by guarantee, to secure the co-operation of all these public bodies in the same way that a statutory body could. We also recognised—though not all of my hon. Friends will agree with this—that the body concerned with tourism should have access to some money; and I will come to the reasons for that shortly.
Having recognised the need for some statutory body, we then found ourselves needing to treat the English as fairly as the Scottish and Welsh had been treated in the Bill. On Report we were concerned with four tourist organisations and a proliferation of voluntary tourist bodies throughout the country, which both the Government and Opposition saw as thoroughly desirable.
It is in this connection that we wish to emphasise the need for good appointments to the boards and the need for co-operation among all sections of the tourist industry, a degree of co-operation which the B.T.A. has successfully won by its efforts.
In Committee there was much controversy about the power that is being given to the new boards to support both


general tourist schemes and individual tourist projects. We found it difficult to pin the Government down to the sort of projects and costs that might be involved in this part of the Bill. We saw public money needed by these tourist boards primarily for trigger operations, such as a contribution to the infrastructure, necessary to allow private enterprise to carry out a tourist project in localities where the local authorities were either too poor, or felt themselves too poor, to pay for all the infrastructure on their own.
Another example that we thought might be practicable was a contribution towards market research in a locality where the local board thought there was tourist potential but where the local authorities required a bargain before embarking on giving encouragement. We envisaged an occasional project like the national conference centre, where there appeared to be a strong national need but where private enterprise would not, on its own—perhaps understandably—take the risk, although it would, once the project was constructed, either completely, or very nearly completely, cover the running cost.
At this stage, perhaps I should refer to the next part of the Bill which caused a good deal of controversy in Committee, and that is the power given to the new bodies to serve as a sort of agent for the Ministry of Overseas Development. I would draw attention to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) who played so large a part in our proceedings, and who, in Committee, raised critically the subject of the enabling powers being given—the arguments ranged over 15 columns of HANSARD—and whether they should be in the Bill at all. Of course, we now know that the powers are not necessary for the Ministry which already has authority to ask the new tourist boards to carry out work for it. We remain sceptical about these powers being in the Bill, although we did not vote in Committee on the matter, but, perhaps, that was only because of the geniality of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) or because we were weary of well doing.
In all seriousness, however, while none of us is against overseas aid, as such, and particularly if it can be carried out by private enterprise—[Interruption.]

—well, I withdraw the word "none" and say most of us—we were told by the Government that the immediate project involved some help for the hotel industry of Malta. This country has an obligation to Malta as the Royal Navy's presence dwindles, and perhaps that is why we did not vote against this power.
So far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, I say straight away that we recognise that, because of the economic and tax policies of this Government, the hotel industry has largely ceased to invest and that, consequently, some sort of injection was necessary to stimulate that much needed investment. We would much have preferred, in this situation, to have used the tax allowance system. That was something which we explored in Committee, but the Government seem to prefer the grant principle. That may offer a shorter burden on the taxpayer, but it also imposes a heavier one than there would be by the tax allowance.
We also say that it cannot be right to have it only for new hotels and not to allow it for the existing ones.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would my right hon. Friend also suggest that never again will a large hotel company ever think of investment without Government assistance?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that my hon. Friend's pessimism is justified—at least in the great metropolitan areas—always assuming, of course, that the tax system is tailored a little more to the needs of private enterprise. We have not committed ourselves as an Opposition to what we should do by way of tax allowances, but we have already started an experiment in the treatment of hotels. We shall see to it that we do whatever we can to make certain that the hotel industry flourishes. We shall watch how investment goes, and we shall watch the likely reaction of the British hotel industry to the tax changes we hope to introduce. I merely mention the very strong arguments presented, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in favour of modern conversions and provision for the tourist industry such as the self-catering trade.
There was great controversy between the two sides of the House when we came to the provision for hotel registration.


We remain firmly attached to the concept that the whole rigmarole of controls, penalties and criminal law is quite unnecessary. We believe that the voluntary system should be used and we have voted consistently to have the voluntary system used for registration, classification and grading so far as the voluntary system can do those things effectively, which is quite a long way, for hotels. We hope that the Government will see the light. We were somewhat encouraged by the assurance of the Minister of State that the Government would not activate the compulsory registration powers without the advice of the new British Tourist Authority.
A considerable point which has not so far been ventilated is the power given in the First Schedule to the Ministers concerned to approve the salaries of all staff of the new tourist boards. The boards, which will be competing in the market for highly specialised professional people dealing in market research, public relations, advertising and related fields, should not be shackled by having to get Ministerial permission and to conform to Civil Service salaries. They are bound to suffer by not getting the best talent. We hope that in another place these shackles will be struck off. Private enterprise will not be able to fulfil its full potential in connection with tourism without the co-operation of a large number of different public bodies in different parts of the country.
We hope that the new authorities will be successful in mobilising public support necessary so that private enterprise shall serve the increasing tourist industry. We ask the Minister to bear in mind that when the Bill becomes law, as it probably will, the two basic precepts: that the appointments to these boards need to be of shrewd commercial, vigorous people and that without the co-operation of the private sector of the tourist industry no success will be achieved.

12.37 a.m.

Sir C. Taylor: I warmly congratulate the Minister of State on his patience. I sat through the Second Reading and 16 of the 18 sittings in Committee. The Minister has been extremely courteous in the way in which he has dealt with the Opposition.
However, I still think this a flabby Bill; it is a Socialist Bill. It would have been much better if all the Amendments we proposed had been carried in Committee, but they were not. I am glad of one thing—that at last a Government have recognised, or sought to recognise, the importance of tourism. For so long tourism has been neglected by a series of Governments, and I include Conservative Governments. They did not appreciate the enormous potentialities of the tourist trade which we see throughout the world, and which will grow enormously.
I still believe that if a succession of Governments had recognised the industry's importance and taken action before, the Bill would not have been necessary. I say this for the benefit not only of the Government but also of those on the Opposition Front Bench who, I hope, will heed my remarks. If the industry had been regarded as a great invisible exporting industry and treated in the same way as manufacturing industries are treated in the matter of investment allowances, and if purchase tax had not been charged on all equipment of hotels—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot on the Third Reading of this Bill discuss all taxes and reliefs which are not in it.

Sir C. Taylor: I do not want to discuss them in detail, Mr. Speaker. I am merely saying that if these things had happened earlier, perhaps 20 years ago, the Bill would not have been necessary and we should have been in the van of the world tourist trade. If there had been no S.E.T. and if there had been easier planning consents for the development of new hotels and new projects, the Bill would not have been necessary. If in some small way the Bill helps the industry after the way it has been neglected over the last 20 years, and if it helps some of my constituents in a small way, I shall not oppose it. Nevertheless, it could have been done differently. It should have been done certainly 10 or 15 years ago. I blame all parties for not realising the importance of the industry. Their inaction did not arise from lack of trying on the part of some of us in the House, who consistently stressed the need for the development of tourism.
Finally, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for the kind and


generous way in which he has dealt with all our arguments. I wish that he had accepted all of them.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My constituency is not commonly regarded as one of the most sought after tourist resorts. Indeed, its beauties, such as they are, are perhaps perceptible only to the sophisticated and partial eye of the native and the inhabitant. Nevertheless, I think that it would be a bad principle and habit if, when the House is discussing legislation which appears at any rate to confer advantages upon certain sections of the country and applies public money to do so, it were to become the rule that the debates were participated in only by hon. Members representing constituencies which stood to benefit, while other hon. Members either absented themselves or observed silence, hoping that when their turn came at the pork barrel their colleagues would observe a similar discretion.
Perhaps we would do better if our practice were the reverse and if hon. Members whose constituencies stood to benefit and whose view and criticism was perhaps not, therefore, quite so acid as that of some of their colleagues were to practise more silence, whereas hon. Members representing constituencies which would have to contribute without receiving direct benefit were more often heard. My constituency, along with others, will be laid under contribution for whatever benefits at the public expense are to be conferred by the Bill.
It would be a pity if the Bill were to leave this House without at least one Member on this side laying his curse upon it as being a thoroughly Socialist Measure. That will not in any way discredit it in the eyes of its begetters, but it should not be a recommendation of the Bill on this side of the House. It has all the classic features of a Socialist Measure. It establishes bureaucratic boards in order to perceive commercial opportunities and promote commercial operations. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) on having succeeded in adding to a Socialist Bill a bureaucratic board which had not been thought of when the Bill was introduced, so that we have now four boards instead of three as there

were when the Bill was introduced. This at any rate gives it a certain symmetry and perfection which it did not initially possess.
Then there is the use, of course, of public money for various schemes which, if justifiable at all, are justifiable commercially, and to enable the State to buy its way into and take a share in private enterprise undertakings.
When we come to the main and second Part of the Bill we find that public money is used to pay grants towards new capital expenditure, towards new expenditure on fixed equipment, and that there are in addition to be loans of up to £500,000 towards capital expenditure, in all cases expenditure which is justified only if at all by the prospect of a profit comparable with that which the same resources applied in any other way would attain.
Finally, we have provision made for the registration, classification and grading by a State authority of hotels, something which, if it is justifiable at all—that is to say, if it enhances the commercial efficiency of the industry—will be undertaken voluntarily on the initiative of the industry itself, as indeed it is already to our knowledge here and in many other countries.
All these provisions in the Bill are not only unnecessary but worse than unnecessary, since they introduce distortions into the use of our resouces and our activities which did not exist before. I was glad that my right hon. Friend in the very cool and astringent—it could hardly be called—welcome which he gave to the Bill on Second Reading and again tonight sought to justify the Bill only on the ground that there were distortions already existing which might be counteracted to some extent by the Bill. These distortions, of course, are the distortions of the tax system introduced by the present Administration. I will not—I cannot, indeed, in this debate—refer to them at any length. There are the perhaps more fundamental difficulties of treating these types of undertaking in precisely the same way for tax purposes as other forms of commercial and industrial undertaking with which they are in competition for capital and manpower. But it seems to me that if we are faced with distortions of that kind the proper remedy is to remove the


distortions and not superimpose a new set of distortions on top of them.
Indeed, this is the breeding ground of Socialism. It is the chosen method of Socialists to introduce a distortion into the economy and, when they discover the mischief they have produced, to come to the House with a new Measure and say, "You cannot possibly deny that it is necessary to legislate further to correct the consequences of what we have already done". So they pass from one stage of Socialist intervention to another. This is the second or third stage along that line.
We have not heard much this evening about the other ground on which the Bill is sought to be justified—it has been referred to in passing—that of the alleged requirements of the balance of payments. We shall be entering at somewhat more length this day upon the question of the balance of payments and its true causes and nature, but, strictly referring to this Bill in that context, it is not reasonable or justifiable to pretend that to provide precisely these forms of subsidy and assistance to precisely this industry can have any predictable or relevant effect upon the balance of payments. Almost every activity which can be engaged in in this country can be regarded as relevant either to exports or to the saving of imports, and it is absurd to argue that any relevant effect is produced upon our balance of payments—such as it is—by their Bill. Even supposing that the whole cause of the balance of payments deficit is not an absurdity dreamed up by our present monetary system, even supposing it were the reality, it would be absurd to pretend that a Bill of this sort could have a relevant effect upon that balance.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend apply his acute mind to one question? If, as a result of this Measure, we have a further 40,000 or 50,000 bedrooms, of which 80 per cent. are occupied by foreigners coming to this country, it will achieve about £200 million or £250 million in foreign currency. Would not that assist the balance of payments?

Mr. Powell: Yes, but I am pointing out that there are about two dozen other ways in which public money could be used artificially to produce one effect or another, plus or minus, upon the balance of payments. We could subsidise any

range of exports that we pleased. There is no virtue in picking out this invisible export, or this import saving, for this treatment.
Here we are not attempting to correct distortions due to our failure to use the price mechanism or due to our misuse of the tax machinery; we are adding new distortions on top of them. Unfortunately, it is the experience that if we create new bureaucratic machinery—if we roll out yet another series of pork barrels—it is difficult in practice ever to withdraw what we have done.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that having once introduced the principle we cannot expect people to build or expand hotels—whatever the demand for them—without a grant from public money. What Government, and when, will withdraw it, and say, "From now onwards you can get on for yourselves"? What Government—I hope it will be the next Government, although I am not absolutely certain—will say "We have removed the distortion which, perhaps temporarily, justified the Development of Tourism Act, 1969, and we can now get rid of the bureaucratic boards and the rest of the machinery which the Bill introduced"?
I am afraid that we shall go on with the clobber of this kind of Measure, accumulating, one added to another, always increasing, never diminishing. With every Bill of this sort there come new jobs; there grow up around it new vested interests, new kinds of indispensability; new accesses of self-importance on the part of the bureaucracy, paid and unpaid, voluntary and involuntary, which will grow up in the shadow of this Bill.
As a result, as happens always, and as long as Socialism flourishes, we shall find more and more people will be messing other people about, instead of getting on with the job they ought to be doing and know best themselves.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry to expose the House to such a sense of anti-climax as to expect hon. Members to listen to me immediately after a speech such as that just delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I would offer one small correction. He suggested that he


was rising to be the first to lay a curse on the Bill. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), he called it a thoroughly Socialist Measure. I should like to put on record that there is wide, growing and substantial agreement about the true nature of the Measure to which we are now asked to give a Third Reading.
The Minister of State said that after 70 hours of discussion the Bill had been substantially improved. This worried me, because one of the major differences of substance now from what we were debating on Second Reading is that an authority and two boards have emerged as an authority and three boards.
I am not entirely happy about this incident. The OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings tells me that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), on being told that we were now to have our third board, said:
This is a great day. It is a terrific time for tourism in England. … We are to be allowed to have an English … Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March, 1969; c. 52.]
I must confess my own reaction to be a shade less rapturous.
Having concluded my expression of scepticism on the proliferation of boards, authorities and commissions in the conduct of government, I am saddened that an industry such as the rapidly expanding tourist industry should be thought to be in such need of public finance. There may be arguments advanced, and I know they have been, which are related to tax distortion which, if I were to dwell on them, would lead to my being ruled out of order, so I will not dwell on them at length. I will say only that there is no industrial or commercial situation which does not lend itself to arguments that it needs public funds. It seems to me unfortunate that in a Bill the Long Title of which talks about the provision of new hotels and the extension, alteration and improvement of existing hotels we have widened the range in which Government intervention and finance is legitimate and legitimised through unwillingness to have an official Division on Second Reading.
My second point, on Part II of the Bill, has grown in substance with the passage of time. Part II covers grants

and, more particularly, loans which will be made by public authorities under this Bill. Since the publication of the Bill and the evolution of this policy we have seen monetary policies at the very heart of Government affairs and the conduct of the Government's economic policy in exactly these circumstances. We have seen the privileged position of public authorities provided with credit giving to the public agencies foreseen in this Bill a leverage which I do not think we truly apprehended at the time of Second Reading.
This is a thoroughly meddlesome Bill, and I was absolutely confirmed in that judgment as I listened to the persuasive arguments of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) when he addressed himself to Clause 8. The sheer minutiae of considerations in judging whether or not grants should be paid caused me to recoil, and I thought what a supreme example it was of the doctrine of countervailing nonsense which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the Bringing in by the Government of distortions to redress distortions which they have already created. Make no mistake, the Bill lays one more straw of public expenditure. It tests the faith of those who believe in free enterprise, and it tests the faith of those who do not see a happy prospect in increasing officialdom and increasing public expenditure.
On Second Reading I voted against the Bill. Nothing that has happened since has caused me to regret my action. I am pleased to have stood up and been counted.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: After nine hours or thereabouts in the Chamber today it has been peculiarly refreshing, to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and also the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). Indeed, I can say that we are all wide awake and ready for more. What I should like to do is to reply to those two speeches, because I fundamentally disagree with both of them.
The Opposition were faced with the publication of a Bill which we had to consider in three Parts, the first Part seeking to take an existing institution


which was a company limited by guarantee and already receiving a large sum of public money, £3½ million, no doubt, which it had been receiving for a considerable time and first through the Tory Party. The purpose was to turn this company limited by guarantee into a company in receipt of public money and to make it accountable to the public as it was not then and hitherto had not been.
Second, we have been faced for many years and by both parties with a completely inept absence of any policy for the tourist industry whatever, about which a few of us on this side have made complaints for many years past; and, basically, seldom have they ever been listened to, and, effectively, by any Government. We found ourselves confronted with a situation which was quite intolerable. First of all this industry, the so-called tourist industry, is not an industry as it is treated, but, of course, it ought to have been treated, tax-wise and otherwise, as an industry. Had it been so treated by any Government, there would never have been the necessity for the Bill. The industry could have been provided with tax allowances and could have received fair and proper treatment from the Board of Trade. It did not receive it—until it became clear that it was becoming of the greatest importance to the country as an export industry.
The second factor with which we were confronted was the intolerable burden on the employment of labour in the industry. It was being deprived of manpower, milked by S.E.T. and was not receiving the training of staff so manifestly required. It needs emergency treatment to save it from expiration. It has been subjected to every kind of distortion until it is suffering from carbuncles and varicose veins and every other form of disease, and a surgical operation is necessary. My right hon. Friend admitted that the industry was suffering from these distortions but said that this was no excuse for imposing others.
My right hon. Friend said that the Bill was unnecessary. I disagree; I believe it essential if this country is to obtain the benefits that we want. It is essential because of the urgent need for speedy treatment for the tourist industry. We must recognise that if we allow private enterprise to continue completely freely

the industry will not achieve its objectives. If we return to power next year or in 18 months time—and I have no doubt that we shall—we could set about the task of improving the tourist industry, but that would be far too late. The industry cannot wait that long before treatment is undertaken.
The industry is not only highly competitive but international. Worse still, it is involved in competition with State enterprises abroad. The Spanish tourist industry is completely controlled. If one wants to develop a hotel there, one gets at least 80 per cent. grant and loan and then it is controlled both as to price and performance. Standards and criteria are laid down. There has been an immeasurable expansion in the Spanish tourist industry. In Italy, the same applies. One can get very large loans and grants, and the hotel will ultimately become one's own, given to one by the Government, provided one is able to prove that one can bring in public from overseas.
I shall not illustrate further except to add that for the past twenty to thirty years the Swiss tourist industry has been governed largely by the State and has its own banking facilities to provide its loan requirements by special methods.
So, while I would rather see free enterprise able to handle the situation, we, being in Opposition, had to view the Bill through the lens of the Government. It was no good simply saying what we wanted to do. We had to set about improving the Bill, which we have done a little. Many hon. Members have been educated to a large extent about this problem during our proceedings. I am sure that all of us who have taken part have learnt a great deal.
We concluded that the best thing we could have were boards to represent the individual interests of England, Scotland and Wales and controlled by a central authority, the British Tourist Authority, which would have the same sort of set-up as the existing British Travel Association, enabling it to draw upon the leading amateurs as well as having a small and effective executive. This would be upon management lines similar to those of a normal industry and unlike the management of a nationalised industry. We took great care not to fall into the trap of the old style of nationalised industries.
We have never liked grants and have always preferred loans, and have called for the widest possible criteria to encourage the rapid expansion of the hotel industry. It is at the heart of the argument that we have to get another 40,000 to 50,000 bedrooms in the next two years. The jumbos are coming, and they are not white elephants; they are not even pink elephants. They are elephants carrying an enormous amount of dollars in their trunks. It is those trunks that we want to see coming to this country, winding their way around the countryside and spilling the dollars all over the place. It is for that reason that we regard this as an emergency Measure, not an attractive one, but one which we hope will have a good surgical effect in producing the shekels we want for this nation. We have also pointed out that it should be necessary to have some form of registration in reserve which will secure this benefit. We fought against any type of compulsory grading or classification.
That is the picture which I give in answer to my right hon. Friend. While I have always admired his brain, one of the great things about listening to him is that it always gives me the incentive to come back fighting with the alternative. He makes one think and by doing so one is sometimes able to get the effective reply.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has made some of the points that I made but much more lucidly than I could have done. I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in replying to most of my points, but not for the Bill, which I do not like, in any shape or form. There are a few aspects of it that I welcome. I welcome what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has called the recognition of the tourist trade. There would have been no need for this bureaucracy in Part 1, even if we accept that grants are now needed, because they never would have been needed if the hotels and restaurants had been treated equally with other industries and had been given the same incentives.
The Economic Development Committee of the hotel and catering industry said:

We are strongly of the opinion that the right solution is to extend to hotels the assistance given to industrial establishments.
If that recommendation had been implemented we should not have needed this panoply of grants. The main purpose of the Bill was undoubtedly to help the balance payments, both by importsaving—persuading the Britisher to stay at home for his holidays—and to attract more foreign tourists.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should have a better international currency system, and I could not agree more. Other countries have very substantial subsidies for the tourist industry. Those of us who have stayed in foreign tourist resorts know this only too well. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that if only the next Conservative Government would remove the distortions everything would be all right. The Conservatives may well come back to power, but they will not remove all the distortions. The distortions that make some parts of the Bill necessary are not just the distortions of the tax system, which the Conservatives may put right, but if they were to come back as a Free Trade Government committed to a floating exchange rate they would have no use for these subsidies.
A Government led by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might come back committed to these views; a Government led by me might come back committed to those views. But no Government that we are likely to get in the foreseeable future would come back committed to these views. It will probably be necessary for us to carry on distorting the economy ad infinitum in order to catch up with the subsidies of other Governments overseas.
I end by making a point that I was precluded from making by the intelligent selection of Amendments. I tabled an Amendment which would have got rid of the whole Clause. I believe there is no need for registration. I cannot see who will benefit from it. If it is merely classification of hotels and certain standards, like the number of hotel bedrooms, the only people who will benefit from it will be the market researchers, among whom I number myself. I should be delighted to have a list of hotels, with the sizes of all the bedrooms; it would make my job, and that of mail


order houses, that much easier. To charge fees to hoteliers in order to help the bureaucrats to build up a list so that market researchers and mail order houses may do their job more easily cannot be the job of a sensible Government.
It is not true to say that countries overseas have a system of classification. Germany, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Holland, the United States, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland all have highly developed tourist trades, but not one has a statutory classified list of hotels, and I do not believe one is needed.
I shall watch carefully in the months and years ahead the bureaucracy that undoubtedly will grow as a result of the Bill. It is not bureaucracy but "adhocracy"—the continuous implementation of new ad hoc boards to look after us and interfere with us. I shall also watch carefully the inexorable and inevitable rise of the administration costs of the bureaucratic juggernaut.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in tracing the progress of the Bill and in speaking of the stewardship of those members of the Opposition party who managed the Bill in Committee, ventured to say that the Government had been comparatively silent and had given the Minister little vocal support.
In the final stages of the Bill it is instructive to realise that the intelligent debate has taken place on this side of the House. The views of the Government are well known; we understand their doctrines. What matters to the country is the discussion now taking place on this side of the House.
Although I have great respect for his deep knowledge, I do not accept the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I do not agree that our tourist industry has been reduced to such a pass that it is in need of what he several times described as an emergency operation. On the contrary, my own impression of the tourist industry in Britain is that it is extremely resilient and is making rapid progress. Much of the industry is quite rightly making a profit and has great growth potential. I

cannot think of many industries in Britain which are more able to stand on their own feet. Consequently, I cannot agree with the proposition that here is an industry so bereft of initiative and so lacking in opportunity and resources that the Government have to come to its aid. If tourism requires Government aid, there are few industries which, on that sort of criterion, could not ask for similar handouts.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was not saying that it needed treatment in that sense. I said that if we wanted urgently to earn extra foreign exchange we needed an emergency operation to ensure the acceleration of the industry's growth rate. That is quite a different point.

Mr. Griffiths: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He based much of his case on the need rapidly to obtain 40,000 more bedrooms because of the advent of the jumbo jets. He spoke of there being international competition, and he observed rightly that in Italy, Spain and elsewhere the competition is on for American and other tourists with their dollars.
There is no evidence on an international scale that those countries which have vast Government tourist organisations handing out public money are better at providing hotel bedrooms rapidly than those which have not. The most massive expansion in the provision of bedrooms in the world is that which has taken place over the last 10 years in the State of California, in Arizona—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks a little more to the Bill, which has nothing to do with California and Arizona. On Third Reading, hon. Members may discuss only that which is in the Bill and how it will apply to the industry concerned.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that it is not necessary to have this large apparatus to achieve the rapid expansion of bedrooms. In California and Albuquerque, where there is no such apparatus, the provision of bedrooms has been made at a rate and in a style and fashion vastly superior to that in Spain and Italy—or to what there will be here, for that matter.
I am bound to disagree with the whole principle put forward by my hon. Friend. The evidence is not with him. It does not follow that a system lacking a Government apparatus of this kind would not be able to provide the necessary number of bedrooms.
I am more impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and those preceding them advanced so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell). Between the publication of the White Paper and Third Reading the squeeze on credit has become much tighter, with the result that the partiality shown by the Bill to public sector lending is greater and more distorted than it was when the Measure was first conceived.
Although I did not vote against it on Second Reading, a process of education has taken place. I have learned a great deal from the arguments which have been advanced, and nearly all those in favour of the Bill have led me to the conclusion that we should be better off without it. I must make clear why I do not like the Bill.
First, I want to reduce Government spending. But the Bill will increase Government spending. It will hand out more money without any clear limit that I can see.
Second, I want to restrain the growth of Government agencies and limit the increase in numbers of those who work in the public sector. But the Bill will increase the size of the Government service. It will hand out more jobs for the boys. No doubt we shall see in the New Year's Honours lists in a few years a number of candidates from the various tourist boards, including the tourist board invented by one of my hon. Friends.
Third, I want to get the Government off the back of the private sector. This is what I say in my weekend constituency speeches. Yet the Bill proposes to put the Government on the back of the private sector.
Fourth, I want more effective Government accountability to Parliament for their expenditure. Yet the more I examine the Bill the more I see that the accountability is very tenuous indeed.
Finally, I want fewer restrictions and more freedom. But the Bill creates more restrictions and takes away existing freedoms.
I would not go as far as I suspect my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would go. I do not say that the Government ought not to help at all. I think that that would be wholly impracticable. But it is incumbent upon me, having said that I do not like the Bill, to say how I think that the Government ought to have drawn the Bill, and I do so briefly.
First, the Government ought to help the tourist industry by providing the infrastructure—the roads, the communications, and so on. They have done the opposite. They have helped to reduce those things.
Second, they should be encouraging private investment in hotels and in tourism. But by their tax policy they have reduced and limited that investment.
Third, they should get out of the way of the private sector, which would be perfectly capable of providing what the Bill seeks without all the provision that that the Government are making. But they are not getting out of the way of the private sector. On the contrary, they are getting in its way.
I am bound to conclude on a slightly different note. I have to change gear, because every hon. Member of this House has two obligations. He has an obligation clearly to state his view on national policy, which I have now done. But the Government have their majority and they will pass the Bill. Therefore, at that stage, every hon. Member of this House must accept two other obligations: first, if this public money is to be spent—and I regret that it is to be spent—to see that it is spent well; second, if any money is to be spent at all, it is part of my job to see that some of it comes to Bury St. Edmunds. I want this money, which I do not think should be spent at all, to be spent well. If it is to be handed out, the English Tourist Board would be very wise to recognise the enormous advantages of spending some of it in East Anglia.

Mr. Emery: Thank goodness, we have an English Tourist Board.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will have heard what I said. I should have


preferred to do without it. But, as the Government are to lumber us with it, it becomes part of my duty, as it is the duty of every hon. Member of this House, to ensure that it is spent at least with some sense of good business.
I conclude on what is perhaps a somewhat lighter note at this hour of the morning. The Bill ought never to have been brought in. It is not necessary. We could do without it. But, if we must have it, will the Minister commend to the English Tourist Board the attractions of East Anglia?

1.30 a.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am not going to make such a promise, not at this time of the morning. If I were in a position to commend to the English Tourist Board any expenditure, I should in fairness have to commend the constituencies of the Leeds, North-East, Blackpool, South, Honiton, the Isle of Thanet, Fife, East, and Eastbourne, whose Members have played a long and constructive part in geetting the Bill through the House, and all of whom are present this evening.
It seems almost improper for me to intrude at this stage on a private quarrel which has developed on the other side of the House within the last hour or so. I was delighted with the splendid condemnation of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West (Mr. Powell) which finally confirmed me in my view that this is a good Bill. I think that this is broadly the view of the House, though there are some exceptions.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) speaking as a true nineteenth-century Liberal and aligning himself with those who do not like the Bill and would prefer not to have it at any price. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not vote with some hon. Members against the Bill on Second Reading, because that is the logic of his view. At least three hon. Gentlemen opposite who are present this evening spoke against the Second Reading. I do not think they are on the side of virtue, but at least they are consistent with their votes.

Mr. Pardoe: This is the second time today that the hon. Gentleman has said

that I did not speak against the Bill on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a certain rationing of speeches among Liberal spokesmen. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party elected to speak on that occasion, and we could not get two speeches from the Liberal Party on that day. In any even, I was away in my constituency discussing tourism.

Mr. Rodgers: I accept the reason given by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he must be very disappointed at not having had the opportunity to speak, which I assume he would have taken had he the chance. However, he would have found himself in a different position from that of his leader, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
There is not much more that I need say this evening. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in our discussions and helped to improve the Bill. I am grateful in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who shared with me some of the responsibility of getting the Bill through. I am grateful, too, to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who provided a constructive Opposition, though we were not always in agreement. Our thanks are due also to those who stood behind us and, in one way or another, gave us advice and information, and sometimes got us out of difficulties which could otherwise have been more embarrassing than they turned out to be.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) who said that for the first time the Government of the day had recognised the importance of tourism. That is how I choose to sum up the Bill. It can, of course, be argued that certain provisions might have been different, and, of course, different views remain. But basically it is a good Bill, because it represents a partnership of public and private endeavour in an industry which is important now and which will become increasingly important in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EX-R.A.F. OFFICER (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

1.34 a.m.

Mr. James Dickens: I rise at this late hour to raise the case of Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne, a former constituent of mine who now resides in Polruan, Cornwall, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). Thus, I should, perhaps, begin by explaining that I have arranged with the hon. Gentleman that I shall complete this aspect of Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's family problems, but I am content to leave his current problems in the hands of the hon. Gentleman, who, I understand, is unavoidably absent this evening.
I should also explain that from December, 1966, until June, 1968, I handled a wide variety of family problems concerning the Cockayne family, most of which were in some degree or other related to the social services. However, matters took a sudden and somewhat dramatic turn on 11th June, 1968, when Mrs. Cockayne, having watched a television programme concerning the work being undertaken at Porton Down, wrote to Mrs. Hilary Rose of the London School of Economics asserting that her husband, Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne, was suffering from the nervous and physical after-effects of nerve-gas poisoning.
Mrs. Rose forwarded the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who in turn was kind enough to pass the letter on to me. That was the first occasion, despite my concern with this family since December, 1966, on which this allegation had been made.
On 21st June, 1968 I wrote to Mrs. Cockayne and asked her to meet me to discuss what seemed to me to be the extremely grave charges which her husband, and she in turn, had made. Having seen Mrs. Cockayne on 26th June, I wrote to the Minister of Defence asking three specific questions: first, whether Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne served at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton during his service

with the Royal Air Force; second, whether he was engaged on research into nerve gases; and, third, whether or not he at any time had suffered any exposure to nerve gas poisoning.
On 31st July the Minister of Defence for Equipment replied to me confirming that Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne had indeed served at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton from 1952 to 1954. My hon. Friend went on to make the following reply in answer to the other questions I had raised. Because of the importance of his reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me on this occasion to quote it at some length.
On the second question I posed, the reply I received was
(ii) He (Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne) was not engaged on research into nerve gases. His duties involved him from time to time in field experiments to assess the vulnerability of our equipment to nerve gas weapons.
(iii) While at Porton, he reported sick twice to the small hospital there. On the first occasion, on 5th August 1953, he was suffering from myopis or contraction of the pupils caused by a mild exposure to a nerve agent. He was treated for this with Codeine and there was no recurrence of the complaint. Almost certainly this mild exposure occurred as a result of a field experiment to assess the vulnerability of tanks, which records show took place on 5th August 1953. It was not unknown for members of the Porton staff at the time to suffer mild myopsis as a result of small accidental exposure to agents. Recovery was normally complete in a few hours without any treatment at all.
Later in his reply, the Minister said
there is no record that when he resigned from the Royal Air Force in 1954 he made any complaint about his health having suffered from nerve gas poisoning, nor is there any evidence that he suffered any lasting ill-effects from the mild dose of nerve gas he received in 1953. If you feel that an independent medical examination, involving as it would full access to Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's medical and service history, would be worth while, I would certainly have no objection. I would understand if you would prefer this to be done by a doctor unconnected with the Ministry of Defence. If you would care to suggest to Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne that he should get in touch with the Ministry of Social Security, they would be prepared to have him examined"—
I stress the word "examined"—
by their doctors since in fact what he is claiming is that he is suffering from a disability which is attributable to his service with the Royal Air Force, and this is a question which the Ministry of Social Security have the responsibility for determining.


On receipt of that letter, I wrote, on 6th August, 1968, to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Social Security asking for this independent medical examination to be arranged. I received interim replies from the Ministry on 29th August and 7th October, and later on 17th October, 1968, following a telephone call, I received an extended reply from the Parliamentary Secretary containing this reference:
Our doctors have now considered the medical history and the Chief Medical Officer wishes to obtain the advice of one or possibly two eminent independent consultants. Whether we will need to go to a second consultant will depend on the nature of the report received from the first. I cannot say at this stage whether the consultants will wish to see Mr. Cockayne. Thereafter, it will be for the doctors to decide, possibly to have a Ministry medical board, whether or not Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's condition is connected with his service and, if it is, what the assessment of his disability should be.
On 12th December, 1968, following some delay, I wrote to the Department of Health and Social Security asking for a definitive reply. On 20th December I received a reply from the then Minister of State at the Department, the late Mr. Stephen Swingler, who, after explaining that the papers were in the hands of the consultants, went on:
I am sorry that this is taking so long, but I am sure that you will appreciate that in a case of this sort and when substantial longer-term awards depend on decisions based on complex medical considerations, there can be no substitute for meticulous examination and weighing of the evidence.
Later, on 30th January of this year, I received a further reply from the Minister of State, this time from his private secretary, containing this passage:
We have now received the report of the first consultant whom Mr. Swingler mentioned in his letter of 20th December. The nature of that report is such that we are submitting the case to an independent medical expert. To make such a submission we must produce a statement of evidence and we are at present engaged on its preparation. Mr. Swingler sincerely regrets that because of the necessity of this further examination there is no prospect of any immediate decision on Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's claim.
On 10th February, at my request, I met Mr. Swingler and we discussed the matter. I see from notes I made at the time that Mr. Swingler informed me that a second opinion on the case would be required and that the case would be referred to a consultant to be appointed by the Royal College of Physicians. My notes record that the consultant would

have access to all documents and papers relating to Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's claim and would ensure that he was medically examined. I informed Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne of this on 13th February.
There was a further delay, and then I received a reply from the present Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, dated 7th May, 1969. In the course of that he said:
That the consultants have now reported. The first, who is an expert on the effects of nerve gas on man, considers that it is not in the least probable that the chemical agent to which Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne was exposed had any delayed or permanent physical effect. The second consultant, who is an independent medical expert appointed by the Royal College of Physicians to advise the Secretary of State on questions of serious doubt, found it unnecessary to examine Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne as the case was so well documented. He endorses the first consultant's report.
It was not clear from the text of that reply whether the first consultant had actually seen Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne or whether, in fact, anyone had seen him at an earlier stage. Consequently, I was surprised when Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne, in the course of a number of Press interviews, made the allegation that nobody had been to see him.
I raised this matter with my hon. Friend, and on 22nd May I was informed as follows:
It is perfectly true that neither of the consultants to whom we referred the case examined Flt.-Lieut. Cockayne".
It was then stated that
when we go to independent consultants and ask them for their opinions, it is not for us to direct them in any way as to their methods of arriving at their conclusions. For us to do so would be to detract from their independence and this would be quite improper. It is, therefore, for the consultants to decide whether they wish to examine a claimant and, in this case, they found that ample documentation rendered this unnecessary.
I regard this reply as unsatisfactory. It clearly raises serious questions of principle. I make no comment whatever about the claim which Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne makes about allegedly suffering from nerve gas poisoning but, in the absence of any personal medical examination of the man, doubt, however unjustifiable, must remain over the allegations which he has made.
Second, the undertakings given by the Ministry of Defence and by the Department of Health and Social Security, both


in writing and orally, to examine Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne have not been kept.
Finally, in the light of the extremely grave statements which Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne has made, and in the circumstances that at present surround this matter, I ask that there should be some further explanation and that a further medical examination should be considered. I urge my hon. Friend to act accordingly.

1.49 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I think I should start by giving a short resumé of this case.
Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne served in the Royal Air Force from 1935 to 1954, when he resigned his commission voluntarily, and shortly afterwards went to Australia. He returned to the United Kingdom in 1961. For the next three years, he had a great deal of psychiatric treatment, and was a patient in several hospitals. He said in 1968 that his condition was due to exposure to nerve gas at Porton Down, where he served from 1952 to 1954.
Representations were made to the Ministry of Defence in the first instance, and as, in effect, Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne was saying that his disability was caused by an incident of his service in the Royal Air Force, the matter was referred to my Department because we administer war disablement pensions. This was referred to by my hon. Friend.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to go into the merits of the case. Neither did he. It would be improper for me to do so because Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne has indicated that he intends to appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal. It would be wrong for me to make any remarks which might prejudice the hearing of his appeal in any way. This will inevitably limit what I can say, particularly concerning the nature of his claim for a war disablement pension. Happily, my hon. Friend was dealing not with the nature of the claim, but with the way in which it was handled.
My hon. Friend has made some sharp criticism of the procedure adopted by the Department in determining the claim made by Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne,

and, in particular, commented on the fact that he has not been examined by one of the Department's doctors. I must make it clear that very many claims are dealt with without its being necessary for the Department to arrange a special medical examination. For instance, when men are invalided from the Forces our doctors generally find that the service medical records and reports of invaliding medical boards, which are automatically referred to them, provide adequate medical evidence on which to accept or reject the claim. The same often applies where we are supplied with recent civilian hospital and medical records, which can provide a full picture of the claimant's history and condition since he left the Forces. In Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's case, his claim was not made when he left the Forces and not until 14 years later. The circumstances were unusually difficult, and my medical advisers considered with great care how the medical questions involved should be determined. I think the late Mr. Swingler explained some of the difficulties when he saw my hon. Friend. Basically my advisers had to decide whether Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's present medical condition was or was not in any way connected with his service in the Armed Forces.
My Chief Medical Adviser decided to submit the evidence to two independent consultants. The first consultant is an expert on the effects of nerve gas on man as I said in my letter to my hon. Friend. The second consultant is a leading psychiatrist. This consultant was specially chosen because he is nominated by the Royal College of Physicians to be an independent medical expert to advise the Secretary of State on questions of serious doubt or difficulty in his field. I will return to the significance of this point later.
Both consultants were provided with the very considerable amount of evidence that we had obtained, including the detailed hospital case notes for the period since Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne returned to England from Australia. They were free to examine him, but they both made it clear in their reports that the documentation was adequate for them to reach their conclusions without the necessity of any physical examination.
I think my hon. Friend should know that, in addition to the full service


records, the consultants were provided with case notes and reports from five different hospitals where Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne had been treated between 1962 and 1965. There were in all about 20 significant medical reports as well as letters written by Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne himself. I have no power to require an independent medical expert to conduct a personal examination. When a matter is referred to an independent medical expert my Department is bound to accept the conclusions reached. The order by Her Majesty which regulates war pensions for the Air Force lays down that where the opinion of an independent medical expert is sought the issue in question shall be determined in accordance with his opinion. Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's claim was therefore rejected, though I might add that if the independent consultants had advised in the opposite sense the claim would most certainly and necessarily have been accepted. Had this been the case, Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne would have been asked to attend a medical board in order that his degree of disablement could be assessed.
As I have said, the claimant has indicated that he wishes to exercise his right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and we have explained to him the procedures that need to be followed in order that his case can properly be heard. I can tell my hon. Friend that if an appeal is received from Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne arrangements will be made for him to be examined by an eminent psychiatrist before the case is heard by the appeal tribunal. This will be a personal examination. I might add that if Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne or his representatives feel that medical evidence used by the Department in the preparation of the appeal is incomplete they are themselves perfectly at liberty to obtain any further evidence from consultants or anyone else, and this evidence would be put before the tribunal at the hearing.
Our anxiety in all cases like this is to ensure that all possible information is available for those who have to take a decision and, to assist those who wish to make their appeal, to ensure that all the evidence they can muster is available so that the tribunal can reach a fair conclusion.
The tribunal is entirely independent of the Department, and consists of a chairman

and two members, one of whom is a doctor. Apart from the assurance I have given that there would be a physical examination prior to the tribunal's hearing, the tribunal itself will be perfectly entitled to arrange for any further examination which it thinks appropriate.
My hon. Friend has cast some aspersions concerning the time taken by the Department in deciding the claim. He made it clear that he had to get in touch with the Department—

Mr. Dickens: I fully recognise that this was a very complex medical matter which had inevitably to take some months to consider and to reach a decision upon. I make no complaint about the time taken, but I am disappointed that after all that time a medical examination did not take place.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having said that he understands the circumstances. I was about to say that matters like this take a considerable amount of time. We had to obtain all the evidence. As I have said, a good deal of evidence had to be obtained from five hospitals. Not only did we have to assemble the evidence, but we decided to submit it for consideration by the independent medical expert. This took a good deal of time, and it was not until 9th May that Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne was notified of the decision.
I know that my hon. Friend will understand the reason why I have not dealt with a number of points relating specifically to Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne's case, since it would be most unfortunate if any words of mine were to influence the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.
I hope that I have succeeded in assuring my hon. Friend that the Department has very carefully considered the evidence. Now that it appears that Flight-Lieutenant Cockayne will wish to take his case to appeal, we shall do everything we can to ensure that all the evidence is available and before the appeal tribunal when it has to reach its decision. As I have said, that evidence will include a personal examination by a very eminent psychiatrist.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Tuesday, 24th June, 1969

[MR. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. Arthur Probert (Chairman)


Allason, Mr. James (Hemel Hempstead)
More, Mr. Jasper (Ludlow)


Archer, Mr. Peter (Rowley Regis and Tipton)
Murton, Mr. Oscar (Poole)



Oakes, Mr. Gordon (Bolton, West)


Atkins, Mr. Ronald (Preston, North)
Page, Mr. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Mr. Daniel (Chippenham)
Pink, Mr. R. Bonner (Portsmouth, South)


Clegg, Mr. Walter (North Fylde)
Rossi, Mr. Hugh (Hornsey)


Doig, Mr. Peter (Dundee, West)
Silverman, Mr. Julius (Birmingham, Aston)


Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Charles (Darwen)



Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)
Solicitor-General, The (Sir Arthur Irvine)


Jackson, Mr. Colin (Brighouse and Spenborough)
Wells, Mr. William (Walsall, North)


Lipton, Mr. Marcus (Brixton)
Whitaker, Mr. Ben (Hampstead

Orders of the Day — LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Law of Property Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
I am conscious that this is very much a lawyers' Bill. When handling a Bill entitled "Law of Property Bill", a lawyer's mind goes back to that great property legislation of the Birkenhead era when a Law of Property Bill and a number of related Bills set up a comprehensive code of ownership and dealings in rights in land.
I do not think that I may make such ambitious claims for this Bill. It is a much more modest Bill which seeks to improve the system of ownership of land, of dealings in land and of the relationship between persons who have different

interests in land, a system which operates under existing Statutes. By common consent, much of the legislation in these fields has stood the test of time well, but there are defects here and there, it may be thought, in methods of conveyancing, methods of registration of title, relationships between landlords and tenants and elsewhere which call for reform.
The Law Commission has been examining various branches of the law of real property and has made recommendations which the Bill implements. Other defects have been brought to the attention of my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, or have emerged in the course of examination, or experience of the working of the law in the courts, the Land Registry, the Lord Chancellor's Department or other Departments in Whitehall. The Bill seeks to amend or improve the law of real property on a


wide variety of matters, some small, some large, which have come to the Government's attention in the way I have described. The approach of the Bill is empirical.
It justifies its title as a Law of Property Bill by the wide range of matters which it covers. It ranges from the relationship of landlords and tenants to conveyancing practices, registration of interests in land and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of land. I believe that the Committee will agree that there is little that is really controversial in the Bill, though opinions among the experts may differ here and there about the detailed technical approach to a particular problem. I hope that the Committee will also agree that the Bill will make a substantial and not unimportant contribution towards the improvement of the law of property.
Unhappily, the very range and variety of subjects set limits on my ability to give a general and simple survey of the Bill. I should like to use a broad brush to give a panoramic view but that subject does not lend itself to that kind of treatment. There is no general theme to be extracted from the Bill and I must largely content myself with the part of a cataloguer. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if my exposition of the Bill will consequently be rather more dry and technical than I should have wished.
The Bill contains four main parts. Parts I, III and IV implement recommendations made in the Reports of the Law Commission. Part I is largely founded on the Law Commission Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II—Law Com. No. 17—published in January this year. Part III gives effect to the Commission's Reports on Root of Title to Freehold Land, published in January, 1967, and on Land Charges Affecting Unregistered Land—Law Com. No. 18—published in March, this year. I may claim some credit for the Government for their prompt action when I say that the Bill was introduced in another place almost simultaneously with the publication of that last mentioned Report.
Part IV is substantially based on recommendations relating to the discharge and modification of covenants found in the Law Commission's Report on Restrictive

Covenants, Law Com. No. 11, published in February, 1967. It may be found that it is the Part of the Bill which gives rise to the greater amount of discussion.
Part II, which is concerned with administration rather than substantive law, is not based on Law Commission recommendations. It provides for the abolition of the ancient system of deeds registration in Yorkshire and it paves the way for the introduction of the general English system of land registration in that county.
This is necessarily a highly technical Bill, and hon. Members who would like to acquaint themselves with the finer details will, I believe, derive considerable help from the Law Commission Reports to which I have ventured to refer. I feel confident that, having read them, they would wish to join me in congratulating the Commission on its valuable and thorough work in these subjects. But I feel that some members of the Committee may take less delight in the more esoteric legal intricacies than others, I propose, having given the Committee this background to the Bill and recommended the Reports for not so light reading, to confine myself to a more general exposition of only some of the provisions of the Bill and not to burden the Committee with too much detail.
Part I is concerned with business tenancies. It implements nearly all the recommendations of the Law Commission's Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and adds to them a few more improvements to the code laid down in that Act. The Clauses in this Part are grouped into those which concern business rents—Clauses 1 to 3—and those relating to the ending and renewal of business lettings—Clauses 4 to 10—and a third group of a few miscellaneous matters.
Clause 1 deals with the situation of a tenant who has made improvements to the premises, or has taken an assignment of a lease of premises improved by his predecessor. Such improvements are already, under the existing law, to be disregarded in fixing the rent on the grant of a new tenancy, but the courts have held that the relevant provision in the 1954 Act applies only to improvements made during the last tenancy of the premises. The case of "Wonderland", Cleethorpes, will come to the minds of


some hon. Members in that connection, reported in 1962 Chancery, at page 696, a decision affirmed by the House of Lords.
The Clause ensures that any improvements made by the tenant or his predecessor in title during the 21 years preceding the new grant will be disregarded, so that in any such case improvements which are due to the tenant's efforts, and not the landlord's, will not be reflected in a higher rent.
Clause 2 ensures that in granting a new tenancy the court may include in its terms a clause providing for variation of the rent. This accords with the general object of the 1954 code which contemplates renewal of business leases broadly in accordance with the practice and terms of the market. The adoption of variable rent clauses is nowadays a common practice, as a matter of consent between parties. The Clause will benefit both landlords and tenants. It enables tenants to obtain the security of longer terms and the landlords to grant such terms as rents adjustable to changing monetary values. The courts will, I think, be more willing to grant a longer term in a case where it seems to them appropriate to do so but where to determine a fair rent might inhibit them from doing so.
Clause 3 is one of the most important provisions in this Part. It meets a longstanding complaint from landlords that unscrupulous tenants can take advantage of the protection of the 1954 Act by spinning out negotiations or court proceedings preceding the grant of a new lease. Under Section 64 of the Act, a business tenancy continues at the same rent as before until such time as a new tenancy is agreed or determined by the court, or an order by the court rejecting a tenant's request for a new lease takes effect, and for three months thereafter.
There have been cases where tenants have spun out the litigation for years and where the difference between the old rent, perhaps fixed 21 years ago, and the market rent has run into thousands of pounds. The Clause enables the court to fix an interim rent which will be payable during the interval between the application and the time when the old tenancy finally terminates.
Clause 4 is another Clause of some significance, particularly to developers.

At present, where business premises are occupied by tenants and subtenants, a landlord may experience great difficulties in obtaining possession against both at the same time. For technical reasons, he will often be unable to serve his notice to end the tenancy on the subtenant until he has dispossessed the tenant. The timetable for terminating tenancies under the Act and the provisions which enable a subtenant sometimes to obtain a renewal of his tenancy for a period which exceeds his own landlord's interest can on occasions involve landlords who wish to redevelop their property in substantial delays before vacant possession against subtenants is obtained.
The object of Clause 4 is to overcome these difficulties by enabling head landlords in certain cases to terminate tenancies and subtenancies at the same time. I am told that the Clause is not completely effective in this respect, and it is my hope to put down Amendments later to improve it. I hope that that degree of candour about the contents of the Bill will be acceptable to the Committee.
I need say little about Clauses 5 and 6. They are concerned with contracting out of the provisions of the 1954 Act. As the Act is intended to afford tenants security of tenure and compensation for dispossession, it is important to prevent its wholesale exclusion when there is a shortage of business accommodation. But here one must hold a balance between what is needed for the effective protection of tenants and what would fetter freedom of contract to such an extent that lettings were discouraged and worth-while accommodation left unoccupied.
Clauses 5 and 6, together with Clause 12, improve this balance. The first invalidates devices sometimes employed to keep the lease outside the 1954 Act. Clause 12 extends from three months to six months short-term lettings which are excluded from the Act, and Clause 6 enables the court to authorise provisions excluding the operation of the Act in longer lettings and in agreements for the surrender of a lease at a future date.
I should like to take Clauses 7 and 10 together, for both concern companies. Under the 1954 Act, a landlord may resist an application by the tenant for a new tenancy if he can show that he intends to occupy the premises for his own purposes. That, of course, also applies to a


corporate landlord, and there is a provision in the Act enabling a company landlord to obtain possession for a business carried on by a subsidiary of that company. But there is no provision to enable a person who is the landlord to do so where he controls a company and intends the premises to be occupied by that company for the purpose of its business. This is clearly illogical and Clause 7 puts it right.
Clause 10 deals with a slightly different defect. Although, as I have said, a landlord may, under the 1954 Act, obtain possession for his own business occupation, he cannot do so where he has become the landlord only during the preceding five years. As I have already explained, different companies in a group are treated as the same person for many purposes of the Act, but this is not so where the landlord's interest is transferred from one member of the group of companies to another. Consequently, after such a transfer, the new landlord company will not be able to dispossess any tenant for another five years, even though the previous landlord company would have been qualified to do so. Clause 10 corrects this anomaly.
10.45 a.m.
Clause 8 is based on Clause 7 in the draft Bill in Appendix 1 to the Law Commission's Report, but it has been amended in an important respect in another place. The object of the Clause is to enable a tenant of business premises to obtain a renewal of his lease in certain cases where the landlord is able to establish one of the grounds on which, under the 1954 Act, landlords may resist requests for new leases, namely, that he intends to reconstruct or redevelop the premises.
It is now intended that in such a case the tenant should be able to obtain a new lease if he is able and willing to accept a tenancy on condition that he gives the landlord all necessary access and facilities to do his work, or where he wants to retain only part of the premises and the landlord can do his work without occupying that part. It is clearly right that a tenant should not be deprived of his lease in such circumstances, but the Clause suggested by the Law Commission was

thought to be capable of an interpretation which would have enabled the tenant to demand a new lease after the property had been completely redeveloped.
As the Clause now stands, the tenant will not be able to get a new lease if he could remain in occupation during the landlord's works only at the cost of substantial or prolonged interference with his business. One can look forward, therefore, to hearing tenants argue on the evidence that the landlord's contractors are so expeditious and careful that the tenant's business will not be substantially interfered with, and to hearing landlords argue contrariwise.
There is little I need say about the rest of Part I. I have already referred to Clauses 10 and 12 and I shall single out only Clause 11 for specific mention. The provisions of the 1954 Act, enabling a tenant who cannot obtain a new lease to obtain compensation for displacement, are drawn in such a way that they depend on an unsuccessful application to the court for the grant of a new tenancy. On occasions, this has proved a trap to unwary tenants who have allowed the time limit for applying to the court to expire and who have found themselves thereafter unable to claim compensation. Clause 11 provides for entitlement to compensation irrespective of an application to the court. In addition to protecting a few tenants from losing compensation unawares, it would also do away with the need to make applications to the court with the sole object of qualifying for compensation, and that seems an economical and desirable provision.
Before I leave Part I, I should like to tell the Committee that my learned and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has now received some suggestions from the Law Commission on amendments to the law relating to business premises held by tenants carrying on business in partnership, a matter referred to in paragraph 5(iii) of the Commission's Report as awaiting a decision of the House of Lords. It is my intention later to table a Clause on this subject. It is also my intention, in accordance with an undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor in another place, to table a Schedule setting out all the Sections of the 1954 Act which have been amended in the Bill in their amended form.
Part II provides for the closing of the Yorkshire Deeds Registries. These registries—there is one in each Riding of Yorkshire—were established by Statute in the times of Queen Anne and King George II to provide in the form of public registers a means of preventing the fraudulent suppression of deeds by certain discreditable individuals who battened on the prosperity of the wool trade. The deeds registries have in their time provided a useful service in protecting titles and enabling them to be checked.
But more modern systems of registration have made the deeds registries anachronisms which add to the complications and the expense of conveyancing without conferring any substantial benefits. The time to close them is approaching now. In time, the system of registered title, that is to say, guaranteed title under the Land Registration Act, 1925, which is gradually being extended throughout the country, would, in any event, force their closure, because the Acts governing registration of titles specifically provide that when a title to land is registered, the system of deeds registration ceases to apply to that land.
So, as registration of title is extended to the Ridings of Yorkshire, any land in that county would be removed from the jurisdiction of the deeds registries immediately it was sold and the title to it came to be registered in the Land Registry. Compulsory registration of title has already been applied to Huddersfield and is planned for other areas. Thus, the continuance of the deeds registries is shortly becoming uneconomical and would become more and more so as time progressed. There are increasing staffing difficulties in the registries. In providing for the early closure of the deeds registries, Part II is assisting in an inevitable process.
Clause 14 provides that each registry is to begin to close either on the date on which registration of title is next extended to any part of the Riding concerned, or at an earlier date appointed by the Lord Chancellor at the request of the county council of the Riding. One effect of the Clause will be that in each Riding there will probably be a period when some areas are subject neither to deeds registration nor to registration of title,

but I do not think that this will cause any hardship because the remaining Clauses in this Part of the Bill will provide for the protection of any rights which have already been acquired by the registration of deeds.
The remaining Clauses of Part II concern the effect of the closure of the registries, the re-registration of some of the matters now registered in them, the preservation of documents deposited in them, administrative arrangements and payment of compensation for displaced staff and members of the public who suffer loss. I do not propose to trouble the Committee with the details. The broad effect of the closure of a registry will be that from the appropriate date, new deeds will cease to be capable of registration. The registry will remain open for another two years for the purpose of registering deeds executed earlier and for searches. Thereafter, the registry will be closed for all purposes. After the initial date of closure of a registry, charges on land which would previously have been registrable in it will become registrable in the Central Land Charges Register.
One class of charges already registered, namely, mortgages not protected by the deposit of title deeds, will need to be re-registered in order to protect their priority, and provision is made in the Bill for such re-registration and for the payment of compensation to any mortgagee who re-registers within two years but has, nevertheless, suffered some loss because the priority resulting from the previous registration has lapsed on the closure of the register.
This brings me to Part III which, as I have said, implements the Law Commission's Reports dealing with conveyancing problems affecting unregistered land—the 9th Report on Root of Title to Freehold Land and the 18th Report on Land Charges Affecting Unregistered Land. Hon. Members will know that there are two entirely different systems of conveyancing, one for land where the ownership is not recorded in the Register of Titles to land and the other for registered land. The system of registered conveyancing is superior in many ways and is being extended throughout the country under a programme which should make it nation-wide by the end of the 1970s. But that is some time yet, and


even in those areas where it has been applied it does not bring land on to the register until it is sold. So for some time there will continue to be numerous transactions in unregistered land. This Part of the Bill is designed to alleviate some of the defects of the system of unregistered conveyancing. It will diminish in importance as time goes on, and, therefore, I need not deal with it in too great detail.
Clause 21, which implements the recommendation in the Law Commission's 9th Report to which I have just referred, deals with the statutory period for the investigation of title. Under the present law, unless the parties make special arrangements, the vendor of freehold land can be required to show a title going back at least 30 years. He must show a "good root of title", that is to say, a document showing clearly on its face that a particular person had a sound legal title to the land 30 years or more ago, and he must then show the steps whereby the title has passed to him.
This "deduction of title", as it is called, can be burdensome and costly and where the land has changed hands repeatedly it may be quite unnecessary, because the same inquiries will have been repeated on each occasion. Informed opinion, which was accepted by the Law Commission, suggests that a much shorter period would be sufficient in the great majority of cases, and the Clause adopts the Law Commission's recommendation that the period of 30 years should be reduced to 15.
There are slight risks that burdens affecting the land may not come to light because they were imposed by documents executed before the root of title. These risks were examined fully by the Law Commission which concluded that they could properly be accepted; and they are lessened by Clause 23, to which I now turn.
Before I explain the provisions of Clauses 22 and 23, I must say a word about the registration of burdens, so-called charges, on unregistered land. As it is of fundamental importance to anyone who buys land to know whether it is subject to mortgages, options to purchase, restrictive convenants, or other burdens, there has to be machinery for recording

such charges, and the law requires them to be registered. Unregistered charges are void against most purchasers of the land, while, on the other hand, a charge once registered is deemed to come to the knowledge of all persons dealing with the land.
Where the land itself is registered, the charge can be entered on the Register of Titles and so be immediately discovered by anyone inspecting that register. But where the land is not registered, the charge can be recorded against the name of the owner of the land only at the time when the charge was created; and a purchaser of land will not normally, at any rate until the vendor produces the documents of titles to him, have any knowledge of the names of the past owners of the land.
The doctrine that a registered land charge is deemed to have been brought to everybody's knowledge, combined with the fact that the name of the landowner against whom the charge is registered may not be known to an interested party, can lead to serious injustices. These are examined in the Law Commission's 18th Report to which I have referred.
Clause 22 remedies the position of the person who contracts to buy land unaware of the existence of some registered charge on it. In accordance with a decision given in 1927, which will be known to the lawyer members of this Committee, the case of re Forsey and Hollebone's Contract, which is reported in 1927, 2 Chancery, at page 379, a judgment of Mr. Justice Eve, and upheld in the Court of Appeal by Lord Hanworth, Master of the Rolls, and Lords Justices Sargant and Lawrence, such a purchaser cannot avoid his contractual obligations when he subsequently discovers the existence of the land charges because he is deemed to have known about them at the time of the contract despite the fact that he could not at that time have discovered them.
As a result of Clause 22, such a purchaser will in future be able to rescind the contract at any time before the land is actually conveyed to him. Clause 23 assists the purchaser of unregistered land who discovers the existence of a registered land charge after the land has been conveyed to him. He will in future be able to claim compensation from public funds.
As I explained in relation to Clause 21, the title documents which a purchaser of land can normally require at present go back at least 30 years. As the system of registration of land charges was set up in 1925, that is, 44 years ago, it is possible even now that a charge registered against the name of a previous owner of the land more than 30 years ago will not be discoverable on a normal investigation of title. This is a defect in our system of conveyancing which, if it causes loss, ought to be made good from public funds.
When the root of title period is reduced under Clause 21 from 30 to 15 years, the chance of old land charges not being discovered will correspondingly increase and also, as time goes on, the period from 1925 to the beginning of roots of title will increase. I have no reason to think that losses are frequently incurred, or that there will be many claims on public funds under this Clause, but the Clause should provide a welcome safeguard against the possibility of loss.
Discussion of the remaining two Clauses of this Part, Clauses 24 and 25, which are of a rather specialised nature, can be left over until the Committee stage.
Perhaps the Part of the Bill which will make the greatest impact is that to which I now turn, Part IV, which substantially enlarges the powers of the Lands Tribunal to modify or override restrictions which have been imposed on land and limit or inhibit the uses to which it can be put. Such restrictive covenants can be modified or discharged by the Lands Tribunal under the existing law embodied in Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, but that Section has been found inadequate to meet the needs of the present day.
11.0 a.m.
Part IV, although it covers more than three pages, contains only one Clause, Clause 26, which operates by way of amending Section 84. That Section, as amended, is set out in Schedule 2. When I explain the provisions of the Clause, hon. Members may find it helpful to turn to the Schedule where the Amendments are set out in heavy print.
First, may I explain the background and objectives? The law on restrictive

covenants is examined in the Law Commission's 11th Report, which recommends extensive reforms regarding the creation, effect, transfer, enforcement, modification and discharge of such covenants. For present purposes we are concerned only with the part of the Report—propositions 9–11—which relate to modification and discharge, because the rest of the recommendations need to be implemented in a wider context which should include covenants other than restrictive covenants as well as easements and other types of rights appurtenant to land, and that must await further study.
But hon. Members will find an invaluable account of the nature of restrictive covenants and the history of the present law and its defects in the first ten pages of the Report. For those who may not find the time to read these pages, may I briefly explain that a restrictive covenant is an agreement between owners of land whereby one undertakes to restrict the use of his land for the benefit of that belonging to the other. The restriction may concern the number of buildings which may be erected on the land, or their height, or their position, or the uses to which the land or buildings on it may be put, or it may relate to the avoidance of noise, or distraction, or restrain the right to cut down trees, or existing structures. The variety of possible restrictions is immense.
Such restrictions if they are properly framed bind the land burdened with them in the hands of its successive owners and they will benefit the successive owners of the land for the enhancement of which they are imposed. The burden runs with the former land and the benefit runs with the latter. In this way, restrictive covenants imposed on land in a particular area can ensure that the character of the area is maintained, that the amenities of the district are preserved, and that one plot of land is not used in such a way as to detract from the value of another.
In their time, restrictive covenants have made a valuable contribution to preserving the character of many desirable residential areas and often they still do so, as well as, of course, often establishing mutual benefits between adjoining land owners. On the other hand, as conditions change, restrictions


which may have been perfectly reasonable in the past sometimes come to inhibit uses to which, in the public interest, land could now be put, perhaps even without causing any substantial harm to other properties.
So the system is open to the criticism that it enables individuals to enforce restrictions which obstruct development which would be beneficial and may be urgently needed. Parliament recognised this as long ago as 1922, when it first gave power to a judicial tribunal, which has now been succeeded by the Lands Tribunal, to discharge or modify restrictive covenants in certain circumstances. But the powers then conferred on the Tribunal have not proved to be effective. As a result of restrictive interpretation of Section 84, the Lands Tribunal is not now able to discharge or modify covenants unless, broadly, they are obsolete or almost worthless.
What the Law Commission has recommended and Part IV seeks to achieve is that in future the Lands Tribunal should have an effective power to discharge or modify covenants where the balance of public and private need favours such a change. As such powers must involve the discharge of some covenants which are of material value to the owners of the land benefiting from them, the Law Commission has recommended that the powers should not be exerciseable unless any loss resulting from the discharge of the restriction can be adequately compensated by monetary payment.
The balance between the private and the public interest in this context is not an easy one to achieve. There are those who would argue that there is no longer a place for restrictive covenants since the introduction of comprehensive planning legislation. That is not a view accepted by the Law Commission, and the Government share the Commission's opinion that privately imposed restrictions continue to have a useful part to play. They can concern themselves with matters of detail outside planning control and preserve amenities, particularly where people sell off part of their land while retaining another part, and they are capable of enforcement by private individuals who might not be able to influence planning authorities to insist on restrictions of more general application.
At the same time, we take the view, as did the Law Commission, that in future, planning considerations should play a much greater part in determining the public interest, and the Clause specifically directs the Lands Tribunal to take them into account.
I hope that the Clause will achieve the right balance in providing that a restriction may be discharged—and by referring to discharge, I include from now on modifications reducing the gravity of the restriction—where it impedes some reasonable use of the land. At present, it can be discharged only if it impedes any reasonable use of the land, but there should be a discretion, subject to the further tests I am about to mention, to discharge it whenever, although the existing use is quite reasonable, some other reasonable and desirable use is prevented.
Where the restriction operates in that way, the Lands Tribunal is to be enabled to discharge it on being satisfied either that it does not confer any substantial benefit or advantage on the persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictions and that such insubstantial value or advantage as it does confer can be compensated in money, or that, although it does confer a substantial benefit or advantage, it operates contrary to the public interest, and, again, on the further condition that there can be adequate monetary compensation.
For example, it will in future be possible for a developer to override a density restriction by building a larger number of houses than is allowed under the covenant, but where the density restriction is not itself contrary to the public interest, he will be able to do so only where the consequential diminution in the value of adjoining properties is very slight. On the other hand, if the density restriction operates against the public good, as, for example, because the area has been designated for a higher density and there is in the circumstances no special reason for maintaining the restriction, the developer should be able to have the convenant discharged and proceed with his development even though adjoining properties are substantially reduced in value. He will, of course, have to pay full compensation.
It is true, of course, that not every amenity can be valued in money. Some may have little monetary value but yet


may be worth preserving. One can even think of cases where they add nothing to the market value—for instance, where a house with a beautiful view is on a site which would have a far higher value for industrial development for which planning permission would be granted. In such a case the view is an amenity which adds nothing to the top market value but may nevertheless be highly prized by a person living there. The new Clause is framed in such a way that he would probably not be deprived of his view—that is, as a result of a restriction on buildings obstructing his view being discharged—unless there were a substantial public interest to be weighed against him.
The new subsection (1)(a) to be inserted in Section 84 refers to
practical benefits of substantial value or advantage
to ensure that not only monetary benefits can be taken into account, and there will always be an overriding discretion for the Tribunal to have regard to all other material circumstances before deciding whether it will discharge a covenant. I hope that the Clause achieves the right balance in this somewhat delicate conflict between public and private interests.
The opportunity is also taken in Clause 26 to tidy up various provisions of Section 84, particularly those relating to the measure of compensation, which are not at present satisfactory, and to clarify the relationship between the court, which alone has jurisdiction on legal issues concerning the validity and effect of restrictive covenants, and the Lands Tribunal, which exercises the powers of discharge or modification. But these are technical matters with which I do not wish to weary the Committee. I am most grateful to hon. Members for the patience which has been shown to me while I have sought to expound the provisions of an extremely technical Bill. I have endeavoured to give an account of what the Bill proposes, and I invite the Committee to agree that the changes proposed are desirable in principle. No doubt, in Committee there will be points of detail arising which we can consider constructively together.

Mr. Graham Page: Upon a Bill which, in party political terms, is noncontroversial, I am reluctant to quarrel with the Solicitor-General at the very beginning, but he called this a lawyers'

Bill. It is much more than lawyers' Bill. In its four parts it is concerned with the letting of business property, the registration of title to property, the sale and purchase of property and the way in which properties will be used, meaning by "property" land and buildings. To put it shortly, it is concerned with how one gets them, how one keeps them, how one uses them and how one gets rid of them. It is in no way comprehensive on any of those subjects, but because it deals with them, it would be wholly wrong for us to sneer at the Bill by calling it merely a lawyers' Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. One does not sneer at a Bill when one calls it a lawyers' Bill.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Page: As lawyers we do not, but I am sure that it is a derogatory remark when laymen call it a lawyers' Bill.
It is true that these matters are not directly everyday matters for the public, but two things arise. We are dealing with matters which, when they arise for the individual, may be the most important in his life. It may be the change of his home; it may be the change of his business.
Secondly, they are events which indirectly have a significant effect on the public. For example, Part I deals with leasehold business premises and I guess that 75 per cent. of industrial, commercial and professional premises are occupied by tenants and not by freeholders. The rents payable by those tenants are reflected in the goods which they produce or distribute, or the services which they provide. So is the cost of disruption if they are obliged to move from one property to another. These costs are reflected in the prices of their products and therefore in the pockets of the citizens.
This part of the law affects considerably the development and redevelopment of the centres of our cities and towns, and we have to see that the law strikes a balance between the desirable continuity of business tenancies on the one hand and the modernisation of our towns and cities on the other.
Part II prepares the ground for an extension of registration of title. That may


seem highly legal and technical, but socially it has an impact upon the sales and purchases of our homes. These days, homes change hands about once every seven to ten years and owner-occupation is rapidly increasing throughout the country. Taking those two facts into account, it is right for any Government to try to make the process of changes of ownership cheaper and simpler.
Registration of title holds out the prospect of that simplification and cheapening of the process, a prospect which hon. Members who are practising solicitors will say has not yet been wholly achieved, but for which we should continually strive. That is why the Opposition were disappointed when the Government suspended voluntary registration of title and when the Treasury failed to engage the staff to bring in compulsory registration much more quickly.
I shall be accused of advocating more civil servants. I would rather have them doing a useful job in the Land Registry than doing a useless job in the Land Commission. The Government ought to have concentrated more on bringing compulsory registration into operation to a far greater extent over the past four or five years.
In every Session of Parliament we add something more to the long list of matters to be investigated when property changes hands. Many hon. and right hon. Members forget when they make the sort of mother-in-law joke of abusing solicitors about the costs of conveyancing, that it is the fault of hon. Members that so much work has to be done in conveyancing. It is the law makers and not the lawyers who are the culprits in increasing conveyancing work and thereby making it impossible to reduce the cost of conveyancing under the present system.
The Bill recognises that. Part III, dealing with unregistered property, tries to delegislate rather than to legislate the reduction in the length of title to be investigated and in the length of time for which land charge searches have to be made. This will save some time in conveyancing. It will not substantially reduce the work to be done, but at least it will not increase the work, as so much of our legislation has done over the past years.
The Bill tries to lift the burdens of the past from the shoulders of the current owner and it continues that process in Part IV by reforming the procedure from removal of obsolete restrictive covenants. This will be an aid to development in areas where old restrictive covenants hamper progress rather than preserve amenities.
The Bill goes some way to remove obstructions to the development of land and buildings and to remove some of the clutter of conveyancing, but it brings no revolution in the law relating to changes in the ownership of property. I, for one, feel that revolution is overdue. The Solicitor-General referred to the Birkenhead reforms. We broke away from 19th century property laws with the Birkenhead reforms in 1925, half a century old in their concept although they reached the Statute Book only in 1925.
The need then was for a system which would simplify the breaking up of the great landed estates into suburban building plots for owner-occupiers. That, I imagine, was what the reformers of 1925 had in mind. That was just the moment when I was becoming an articled clerk and had to learn those reforms in the law very thoroughly. The process of breaking up the great landed estates into suburban plots continues, but the need has changed.
In the 1920s, the troublesome things about property were the interests created by the lord of the manor on the one hand, and the family benefactor on the other. In 1922, the lord of the manor was dealt with by sweeping away copy-holds; in 1925, the family benefactor was dealt with by drawing the curtain in front of the interests which the Victorian family benefactor was so fond of creating in his properties. Entails and life interests, trusts and annuities and the rest were bundled behind the curtain and, provided the purchaser was not a Peeping Tom, he escaped liability for them.
However, in the ensuing half-century, while we have kept the curtain drawn against those unwelcome intruders, the door seems to have been gate-crashed by another "lord of the manor", now called the local authority, and a new family benefactor, the building society,


the bank, or the insurance company. These are the realities of today and these are the matters to which we should pay attention in any reforms of conveyancing law.
Normal conveyancing is not now concerned with the house on the plot which was recently part of the big estate. Run-of-the-mill conveyancing is now concerned with the house on land which has changed hands many times since it was part of the big estate. Conveyancing is now about town planning, road widening, clearance areas, motorways, compulsory purchase orders and so on. It is about finding a mortgage, about satisfying the building society as to the status of the borrower, about satisfying the building society's solicitor of the saleability of the property if the borrower should default. The Bill does not do much about that sort of thing.
What could it have done? It deals with land charges. It deals with those charges registered in the Central Land Charges Registry against the names of individuals. We do not find many puisne mortgages or estate contracts in conveyancing now. They are quite exceptional. When restrictive covenants are registered, they are usually disclosed pretty well on the title, without finding them on the Land Charges Registry.
What the Bill does not touch are the registers of local land charges scattered about the country with the local authorities, registered against the properties themselves, it is true, and not against the names of previous owners, but that is where one discovers whether the property is in the line of a new road, or in a clearance area, or something of that sort.
Nor does the Bill touch on those vital matters which do not even have to be registered in those local land charges registries and on which information has to be winkled out of the local authority by a form of inquisition. Only there does one discover whether there will be that new motorway passing by one's bedroom window; only there, by question and answer, does one discover whether there will be any road charges, a crippling sum for some owners of property.
Conveyancing can never be simplified until and unless everything relating to the property is placed on one register. Universal compulsory registration of title,

even as it is practised at present, will not solve that. I hope that at some time we may reform the land registry so that it can take on board local land charges and all other encumbrances on the property so that there is only one place to look.
If we do not do something like that before the Redcliffe-Maud reforms come into operation, I dread to think of the chaos in the creation of new registries for the new authorities and all that trouble. But even before the universal register of all encumbrances, we could have tackled the problems of conveyancing, the more obvious lunacies of conveyancing, in this Bill.
Our system of conveyancing has grown into a formidable structure of stationery. On that stationery we play a sort of quiz game. We have preliminary inquiries and answers; we have local authority inquiries and answers; we have requisitions for local searches and answers by a certificate of search; we have requisitions for land charges searches and answers by the certificate of search; we have requisitions on title and replies thereto; and we have now the particulars delivered form with questions and answers; and finally, the Land Commission form which is a form of question and answer.
All this quiz game goes on solemnly with poker faces on either side. The vendor's solicitors know exactly what the purchaser's solicitor is to ask both of them and of the local authority. But, with poker faces, we wait until the questions are asked and then we make those non-committal replies—"The vendor is not aware of any", or, "None other than is apparent on inspection", or other forms of non-committal answering.
We could speed up this game by listing a number of statutory assumptions that the purchaser was entitled to make when a property was offered to him for sale, or when an offer was made by him to purchase and that offer was accepted. Thus there would be an obligation on the vendor to state specifically any respects in which those assumptions were inapplicable, putting the obligation on the vendor to disclose any burdens on the property, and if he did not, to compensate for them after the contract.
I should have liked something on those lines of practical reform in the Bill. But,


rather than stray into ideals perhaps, I had better get back to what is in the Bill.
As is appropriate after what I have said about conveyancing, Clause 1 deals with the case of in re "Wonderland", Cleethorpes, but in leaving us out of in re "Wonderland", it drags us straight into the Wonderland Commission. The landlord will be liable for betterment levy upon improvements for which he will receive no return, and this needs a little careful thought. I am not prepared to leave this to the discretionary powers of postponement of the Land Commission and I should like this to be dealt with specifically in the Bill.
11.30 a.m.
The 21-year period in Clause 1 is a rough and ready rule which we may have to consider further in Committee. Some owners of business premises resent any restriction on their powers of letting and would like Part II of the 1954 Act swept away altogether. But the majority of owners take the view that they are in business to let and so long as they are assured of a market rent, they have no complaint.
But that majority will dwindle unless we get Clause 3 right. Clause 3 is that which deals with the tenant who has been stalling by litigation so that he continues to pay an out-of-date rent, and owners have been waiting a long time for Parliament to condemn that tenant and to amend the law.
The Bill allows the court, upon application, to fix an interim rent while that litigation proceeds. But I have yet to be convinced that there is any good reason why the tenant should have the premises during that period at anything less than the market rent as finally determined. The right way to deal with this, although I agree with the application for an interim rent, a rough and ready solution for the time being, would be that the difference between the interim rent and the market value should be paid by a premium or, perhaps, a contrary payment to a premium if the figures work out the other way, or to be taken into account in the figure for the new rent when it is finally fixed, that is to say, spread over the new rent having regard to the fact that the tenant under the

interim rent may have been paying less or more than the proper market rent.
It is too much a feature of the Bill that we have resorted to a rough and ready rule. The 21 years under Clause 1 is rough and ready, and I certainly think that the interim rent provisions come into the same category. The other Clauses in Part I are useful reforms and, with some Amendments which we have in mind, I hope that we can make them even more useful.
There are some serious omissions, however. The Solicitor-General said that he would introduce some Amendments to Clause 4. It is Clause 4 which deals with sub-tenants, but there is a lot more in the law relating to business premises which needs correction in connection with sub-tenants. There are problems of the unlawful sub-tenant; the sub-tenancy which is granted for longer than the head tenancy; the sub-tenant improving the property and so on. In my own experience, sub-tenancies have given more trouble in the operation of this Act than the direct tenancies, and yet the Bill seems to have run away from this problem. We shall suggest Amendments to Clause 4, and we shall wait to see how far they deal with the sub-tenant problems.
We are also to have some additions to the Bill to deal with partners in business. I hope that these Amendments will be published for the Committee stage and that the Committee will be able to discuss them and come to a conclusion on them without waiting for the Report stage when we may find the Bill discussed late at night so that we have to discuss important Clauses in the early hours of the morning.
We welcome the undertaking to produce a Keeling Schedule for Part II of the 1954 Act and to insert that as a Schedule to the Bill. This is helpful and it is a practice which is now adopted by a number of Government Departments when in producing amendments to Statutory Instruments. It has proved useful in that sphere and we shall welcome it here.
Part II, which deals with the Yorkshire registry, leaves me very unhappy. I am unhappy about the closure of the registry, or the possibility of its closure, before


the introduction of compulsory registration. It seems to me that there will be a waste of energy in transferring everything to the Land Charges Registry at one step, and then, when compulsory registration comes, transferring it again to the other part of the registry.
There will also be a serious gap of a sort of semi-unregistered title during that period when the Yorkshire registry is being closed down and compulsory registration has not been applied to the area. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to look at this in Committee. When it has been decided to abolish one form of registration, the hon. and learned Gentleman should go to the Treasury cap in hand and say, "Please give us the staff to convert Yorkshire to compulsory registration right away so that there is not this gap and this waste of effort".
On Part III; I am not convinced that the dangers inherent in the reduction of the period of title from 30 years to 15 years are so small or so acceptable by what the Solicitor-General called informed opinion as is stated by the Law Commission. I should have favoured a 20-year period. This we recognise in conveyancing in connection with statements in recitals having a prima facie truthfulness if they are 20 years old. I think that 20 years might have been sufficient by way of reduction. It will not make much difference in the work entailed between 15 and 20 years.
Under the new system, the purchaser need search only against the names of those who held the property since the conveyance on sale 15 or more years prior to the contract for sale, but I am a little doubtful about the obligation of the vendor. Has he an obligation to disclose burdens of which he is aware prior to the root of title? If he does not do so, will that be fraud under Clause 23(8)? If it is, would that entitle the Chief Land Registrar to prosecute him for fraud and get the return of the compensation which will have been paid to the owner? It looks as though the vendor will sometimes be able to take the full purchase money and keep his mouth shut, and the State will pay off the land charge. I cannot think that that is intended, but it may be that we need a provision in the Clause to make that clear.
Is the vendor bound in quantum by the sum paid by the Chief Land Registrar in compensation? It does not seem that the vendor will be called into the negotiations or the litigation between the Chief Land Registrar and the unfortunate current owner. Apparently, they may settle it between themselves. If the Chief Land Registrar then searches out the vendor, apparently the vendor cannot argue, "You paid him too much". The vendor ought to have the opportunity to come into the negotiations, or the litigation, between the Chief Land Registrar and the present owner claiming compensation.
On part IV we shall be at issue with the Government over the direction to the Lands Tribunal to consider planning permission upon an application for the discharge or modification of restrictive covenants. It would be fatal for the Lands Tribunal to become another planning authority, and this is what will happen as the Clause stands.
This was argued to some extent in another place, but I shall wish to return to it in Committee. This reform of the applications for discharge or modification of restrictive covenants fails to deal with two important aspects of those proceedings. It does not deal with the problems between positive and restrictive covenants. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that that has to await further study, but we know what that means—we shall not get the Bill for that for a long time. In the meantime, there are problems which crop up again and again in conveyancing as to the rights and liabilities under positive covenants.
The other trouble here is that the Clause does not deal with the one great defect of the Lands Tribunal—the absence of legal aid. What it will do is increase the evidence to be brought by the parties to the Lands Tribunal and therefore increase the expense. It is not always the great estates or the wealthy developers who squabble over restrictive covenants. It is often the modest suburban householder faced with a tower block of flats in the next garden. He does not have the funds to fight through, probably against a wealthy developer, without the assistance of legal aid. If we are to extend occasions when the Lands Tribunal will deal with restrictive covenants, as is clearly the intention, we


ought to give a chance to the man of modest means to put up his fight.
Finally, I cannot feel wildly enthusiastic about the Bill. My lack of enthusiasm, though, is not due to its being a technical Bill. I do not think that it is a technical Bill. However, it has great social effects. It will affect many people in their ordinary lives. I am disappointed that it does not go much further with the necessary reforms. We have had the classic example in the past few years of the Companies Bill when we were promised again and again, "If you make this little reform in company law now, next year you will have another Companies Bill." It is always next year. I fear that the Bill will be a good chance lost. In Committee and on Report we shall try to retrieve as much of that chance as possible.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: On a point of order. I did not wish to interrupt the two first speeches, but may I draw your attention to the official list of members of the Committee, Mr. Probert? Where my constituency appears, the name against that constituency is not my name. I should like to know whether I am a member of the Committee so that my listening to two speeches was not in vain. If I am a member of the Committee, could a very distinctive "i" be added to my surname? Otherwise, I am in great danger of being translated to the Scottish Grand Committee.

The Chairman: I drew the attention of the Clerk to this omission at the commencement of the Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be pleased, but I have put a very distinctive "i" against his name on my list.

Mr. Rossi: I am much obliged, Mr. Probert.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: That point of order by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who himself is a solicitor, ought to show laymen what a difficulty may be created by the omission of an "I" in that way in a conveyance in 20 years' time. This is just the sort of thing the lay public does not understand and why solicitors have to be so careful when conveying property. It is an apt example.
This is a useful Bill. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the clear and concise way in which he explained it Clause by Clause. But my imagination was captured by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he explained his broad and imaginative view of the present situation of conveyancing and the need for drastic reform of this mountainous stationery, as he so aptly described it, with which members of the profession now have to deal.
To the hon. Member for Crosby, to myself and to most hon. Members in the Committee who are lawyers, the Law of Property Bill can mean only one thing: the monumental legislation of the 1925 Act. To us, any other legislation by the same name must be a misnomer. During that 12 months, the difficult was done immediately and the impossible was achieved within 12 months in four major Acts from one Parliament, and the whole law of property was revolutionised.
The Bill's concept goes nowhere near resembling even one Section of the 1925 legislation. I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby that we now have to consider the local authority, or Government Departments, as the lord of the manor. We are not dealing with estates any more, not even broken up estates; we are dealing with tiny pieces of land, people's homes, which are to be conveyed to someone else as homes. That is the sort of matter with which the solicitor, the conveyancer, now deals.
On another Committee of which the hon. Member and I were members, we dealt with the question of the suspension of voluntary registration of title. I raised the issue of computerisation. I will give the Committee an example of the multiplicity of registers in which one has to search. The lawyers will know it, but non lawyers may not.
If one is dealing with a house in an urban district, one searches in the local urban district, in the county council, in the Register of Land Charges, often in the Companies Register if there has been a company somewhere on the title in the past. All this must be done twice. It must often be done pre-contract, and it must be done again before completion.
If all these things were on one register, together with compulsory registration of title, the situation would be much easier.


Conveyancing would be infinitely cheaper, and it could be done if we could get paper. Paper is the problem. We no longer need paper for conveyancing. A computer and an electronic machine can do it far more efficiently and probably far more accurately than any hon. Gentleman, no matter what his legal ability, because the computer does not forget. A computer is accurate and can give immediate answers to questions. I am not saying that the computer would never make a mistake, but the mistakes would be so rare that a State guarantee of compensation to anyone so affected would adequately cover it.
I am convinced that the Law Officers ought to pursue computerisation much more vigorously so as to put all these varied searches on one register. It would imply not a growth but a diminution in the number of civil servants.
There are three aspects of the Bill. The first is the tidying up of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The second is the holding operation until we have compulsory registration of title affecting the whole country. The third is this major reform of the Lands Tribunal and the way in which we are to deal with restrictive covenants and application for their removal.
Some of the most useful Clauses are Clauses 5 and 6, which allow a landlord and tenant to contract out of the provisions of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act. That Act was designed for the ordinary tenancy, where a tenancy had come to an end and the tenant was seeking its renewal. But increasingly in practice one finds difficulties stemming from that Act where there is a redevelopment scheme in the area, where one is not dealing with a transfer of a tenancy from one tenant to another, or a renewal for a further period, where the tenancy is coming to an end because either there is to be a major reconstruction of the premises, or the premises are to be demolished.
In the interim there is planning "blight" on our major shopping centres. The Bill does not get rid of the problems of planning blight, but Clauses 5 and 6 may marginally help, because now a landlord will not be deterred from granting a short tenancy of property, whereas in the past he may well have been deterred

because he might be caught by the 1954 legislation.
The result was that that property stayed empty, dirty, decrepit, waiting for demolition, and that had an effect not only on the property itself, but on the surrounding area, the surrounding shops and on the customers, who did not want to use that area any more because it looked so down and out and decrepit.
Clauses 5 and 6, which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned only in passing, could have a considerable effect on central shopping areas and on keeping premises in use instead of being closed down because the landlord feared the effects of the 1954 legislation.
What the Bill does not do, and it may not be within its terms of reference, is deal with another major anomaly of the 1954 legislation. That is the level of compensation paid to a tenant on the determination of his tenancy. It stands either at the rateable value of the premises, or, if he has been there for a long time, double the rateable value of his premises. That is what the tenant receives by way of compensation when he must give up not only his home, but often his livelihood.
I have known case after case of a shopkeeper receiving infinitely less in compensation for the loss of his home, business and livelihood than his assistant receives in redundancy payments. Clearly, this proves that the level of compensation for the small shopkeeper, who is not a wealthy man, is far too low. I wish that the Bill, which amends the Landlord and Tenant Act, contained a better provision than this rule of thumb, arbitrary figure of the rateable value of the property, which may be only £200, or double the rateable value, as the yardstick for compensation.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Crosby is so worried about the Yorkshire registries. Surely the position in Yorkshire in the interim will be only that in the rest of the country. I was intrigued by my hon. and learned Friend's description of these registries from the time of Queen Anne. I am a Lancashire Member and I understand that it is necessary that special precautions should have to be taken in Yorkshire, but the closing of the registries had to come. I hope that this will speed up


compulsory registration of title over Yorkshire, but I do not foresee any damage being created in the meantime, because this change will put Yorkshire in the position of the rest of the country until compulsory registration is applied.
I welcome what my hon. and learned Friend said about the 15 years root of title. I remind the Committee that it has been agreed and accepted by the Law Society, by the Building Societies Association and by all sorts of people who agree to this reduction of the title. On a practical note, may I tell my hon. Friend what happens? Usually, the parties do not have an open contract between each other; they have a contract whereby they agree the length of title that one is to give the other. This is agreed in the contract.
Until recently, it was frequently agreed that the title should be left in 30 years, which was perfectly proper for two parties to agree. The reason for that is that one does not want to investigate the title of a whole building estate to investigate the title of one house. Therefore, one can restrict the period of title without any inconvenience to anyone.
But recently, because of the extension of compulsory registration of title and because of the 30-year rule, solicitors have often had to insist on a 30-year period in order to satisfy the future requirements of the Chief Land Registrar. We have gone backwards rather than forwards because of this 30-year period, and I warmly welcome the fact that it is now to be reduced to a 15-year period.
The major part of the Bill is the reform of the Lands Tribunal and the modifications and discharge of restrictive covenants. Clearly, this reform has long been needed.
Let us suppose that 100 years ago a landowner in the mansion, which we will call "Irvine Hall", had a view of a heath in the distance which he wished to preserve. The whole character of the neighbourhood will have changed in 100 years. But 100 years ago a restrictive covenant was put on some other land some distance away which that landowner then owned and was about to sell. The covenant provided that no building over a certain height should be built upon the land.
In the course of time, someone may wish to develop that land and build a block of flats, which we will call "Gardiner Mansions", on that plot. He would not be able to do so because of the restrictive covenant, unless he got it modified or discharged. That is so even though "Irvine Hall" itself may be a block of flats, or a factory. The owner could still say, "No, this covenant is not entirely obsolete, because I may sell and this may go to the benefit of the purchaser; the benefit of this covenant still runs with my land."
Clearly, in an instance like that the public interest should be taken into account. Surely the public interest is best represented by the views of the local planning officer, whose evidence is vital in this matter.
12 noon.
For decades the law on other restrictive covenants has leaned heavily in favour of the covenantor and not the covenantee, but with property it has rigidly adhered to terms in favour of the covenantee. It is not unknown for the public interest to be taken into account. The Restrictive Practices Court is mainly concerned with the public interest when it is dealing with restrictions. When there are restrictive trade agreements between individuals, the law very much considers the position of the covenantor from the point of view of public interest. Indeed, a ground for setting aside a restrictive covenant is that it is in breach of the public interest.
All the Bill does is to apply that to land. Why should it not be applied to land? Much money is spent to do away with restrictive covenants which are no benefit to anyone. If the public interest can be taken into account by the Lands Tribunal, that will free and utilise what may be Britain's scarcest resource—land. It will enable land to be used more freely and to better purpose than it now is because of private agreements between individuals, agreement that may have been made many years ago.
I wonder why the Government did not adopt all the recommendations of the Law Commission about restrictive covenants, land obligations and so on. They have dealt only with the discharge of restrictive covenants. It will be a long time before we have another Bill of this nature, and it is a pity that the other


recommendations of the Law Commission were not included. They may be included in Committee. Perhaps Government Amendments will be introduced to incorporate those recommendations. It would be a pity if they were shelved, for they are useful.
If the hon. Member for Crosby wishes to suggest an Amendment to extend legal aid to the Lands Tribunal, he is certain to have my name on that Amendment. It is wrong to set up a court, and an expensive court at that, and not provide for legal aid. The Lands Tribunal is an extremely expensive tribunal, particularly for those in the provinces some distance from London. Hence, it is rarely resorted to.
The person affected by a restrictive covenant and needing the protection of the Lands Tribunal and needing to have it discharged is often not the big landowner but the little, suburban, semi-detached house owner. He needs legal aid. He has as much right to justice as the big landowner. If the Lands Tribunal is to consider the public interest when considering restrictive covenants, legal aid should be extended to those appearing before it.
It is a useful Bill, but it could have done much better. That is my summing up of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) will induce the Solicitor-General to put down a Money Resolution enabling us to table and discuss an Amendment to extend legal aid to those appearing before the Lands Tribunal. That will need a new Money Resolution, but I am sure that it is worth trying, because lack of such legal aid provision is clearly the biggest defect in Part IV.
The most interesting statement in the Solicitor-General's speech was when he told us that compulsory registration of title to land should become nation-wide by the end of the 1970s. That I regard as a pledge. Whether it will be for him to fulfil it, I do not know, but it is a good pledge to have given.
I think that it could be implemented even earlier. Much of Part III, almost all of Part III, which may become more than a holding operation unless we are careful, would be unnecessary if we were to have nation-wide compulsory registration.

Part III already involves the expenditure of additional public funds—in compensation for defective conveyancing and in compensation for defective registers of land charges. Against the expense of compulsory registration, one has to put in the other side of the scale those public expenditures which are to be newly assumed by the Government which would be obviated if compulsory registration were rapidly extended.
It is good news that in the last few years a number of new district registries have been opened, though it is bad news that the system of voluntary registration has been abolished. Lord Wilberforce made an acute observation in the other place about the expense of registration. He said that it was a money-making machine, that land registries made money for the Government. They are not in the category of the public expenditures which we deplore so much, which are wasteful in the sense that they involve an outflow of public funds. They more than pay for themselves.
It is a false economy and using the Chancellor's stick with a broad and clumsy stroke in any way to impede this desirable process. If civil servants are needed for the purpose, as I am sure they will be, they should be transferred from other Departments which are not so necessary or so profitable. Although no doubt necessary, Part III is a confession of some failure.
I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) about the reduction of the statutory period of title. I have no doubt that it will be of great convenience to solicitors, but the convenience of solicitors is not necessarily coincidental with the public interest for once. I am appalled by one of the reasons given in paragraph 28 of the Report of the Law Commission on the Transfer of Land. There is a sentence in paragraph 27 which I ought to read:
It must also be acknowledged that the extent of the saving of work, in those cases where work is saved, must be variable, depending on the facts of each particular case.
In other words, sometimes no work will be saved and, even when it is saved, there is no clear evidence of how much the Commission thinks will be saved.
Paragraph 28 goes on:
In view of these variable factors, we think that guidance as to the advantages flowing


from a reduction in the period can best be obtained from the general impression derived from conveyancers from their day-to-day work:
In other words, it is all very subjective, all a matter of opinion, and not of evidence. We appreciate that on questions such as this it is easier for experts to know the answer than to prove it. That is true of all experts, often with disastrous results.
However, our attention has been drawn to one significant fact, and this is where I foresee great danger. A reduction to 15 years would remove from many abstracts of title transactions carried out between 1940 and 1946 which, owing to the generally disorganised conditions then prevailing and the destruction of many documents, can be an unusually troublesome period. It may be unusually troublesome, but the provision is just what is necessary to protect somebody against the appearance of a defect in his title during a period when titles became very defective.
It is no good sweeping a difficulty or danger under the carpet and saying that it is a difficult task when its very difficulty increases the necessity for undertaking it. During that period defects in title arose frequently, not so much as to the absolute title of all the parcels of land, but often over a question of boundaries, often a question of partial defects of title.
Knowing much less about it than the hon. Member, I believe that when we talk about defects of title, we often imagine the tremendous cases where the whole of a great estate is found not to be in the hands of the person in whose hands everybody thought it to be. But that is so rare that it does not matter. These difficulties arise over and over again when the map at the back does not agree with another map and there is a dispute about the parcels, or about a ditch, or about the extent of a field, or something of that sort. That is where there is great danger in reducing the necessity to show a good root of title to a 15-year period.
My worry is made the greater because, for some reason, the Law Commission went on to say that it did not think that it was necessary to try to define a good root of title. If we are to limit the

period to 15 years, surely we should take the opportunity of putting that matter beyond doubt and of providing a copper-bottomed—I think that is the modern word—root of title.
In paragraph 39 the Law Commissioners say:
It has been suggested to us that a good root of title should be defined"—
I should think so—
(a) so as to include a clear requirement that the document concerned effects a disposition for value; the judgment of Cotton L.J. in Re Marsh and the Earl of Granville's Contract (1884) 24 Ch. D.11 leaves it in doubt whether a conveyance by way of gift is sufficient;"—
We do not know whether that is a good root of title—
(b) to include dispositions under overreaching powers, e.g. by mortgagees, trustees for sale etc., as to which there may be some doubt;"—
and—
(c) to deal with problems arising from dispositions drawn without words of limitation, in reliance on section 60 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by accepting such a disposition as a good root if it was for value and contained a recital of the grantor's interest.
These are all matters of doubt.
The last three sentences of paragraph 40 say:
Only under an open contract does the vendor have an obligation at large to produce a 'good root'.
It is only open contracts that we are discussing in this reduction of the period. Where there is a specific contract, one does not need to consider the root of title, because it gives its own definition. Only under an open contract does the vendor have an obligation at large to produce a "good root".
It is important to practitioners that there should be complete freedom to negotiate according to the particular circumstances of each case.
That is obvious.
Hence they prefer to leave the requirements of a 'good root' to be decided on the facts in the rare cases in which a dispute arises.
As a reason for not taking the opportunity to define what is a "good root" of title that is about as unconvincing a piece of argument as I have ever found. I am sorry to speak disrespectfully of the learned Law Commissioners, who are a most distinguished body, but if we are reducing the period for which one has to show a good root of title, it seems


essential to define what a good root is, and I hope that this will be done.
12.15 p.m.
One of the reasons for the reduction of the period given by the Government and by the Commissioners is that it does not matter so much because we are to compensate people out of public funds if, as a result of the reduction of period, the purchaser finds that he has not got what he thought he was to get. That applies only in the case of encumbrances. It applies only where it is a land charge, other than a local land charge, which has been discovered and which dates back far beyond that period and which has not previously been discovered because it was by mistake registered in the name of Ross instead of the name of Rossi.
There are many examples of that in our land law history, and there are many cases on that subject. In those cases the taxpayer is now to pay for that mistake. But the taxpayer is not to pay if it is a question not of encumbrance, but of title, and particularly in the frequent case of mistakes as to the parcels, as to the boundaries of the land conveyed, or something of that sort. And that mistake is much more frequent than is thought. I fear that, if the period is to be reduced in this way, where the advantages to be gained are highly subjective—the Commissioners say that they have no firm evidence of the sort of advantage which will be gained, but it is just that the practitioners have a feeling that there will be advantages—it will be difficult to evaluate on one side of the scale what that advantage is, and, on the other side of the scale, there will be great dangers.
I therefore, support very strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in saying that the period should be 20 years at the very least, because otherwise we shall have many more cases of conflict, not so much about encumbrance, because then the public will pay, but about title, particularly at the margins of parcels.

Mr. Oakes: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account that not only practitioners but the Building Societies Association, whose members would have most to lose if there were to be ill effects from the reduction to

15 years, itself strongly supports and approves it?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. I see also that members of my profession in Lincoln's Inn strongly disapprove, and I should not like to go to arbitration between those two. I think that it goes too far, for the reasons I have given. I fear that there is a slight desire to be "with it" on this 15-year period. Twenty years would harm the practitioner or the building societies, and in marginal but important cases it would still provide an important protection.
But more important than that, whether it be 15 or 20 years, a "good root of title" ought to be defined. The argument which various intellectuals adopt, that one makes something more doubtful by definition, always strikes me as being too clever by half. I hope, therefore, that the opportunity to define a good root of title will be taken, and will concentrate the mind of those people, because when they say that it ought not to be defined, what they really mean is that they do not know how to define it as they do not know what it is. So let us do something in Committee about defining that.
My point in making those remarks is to show that, whatever difference there may be between the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) and myself on root of title, and whatever differences we may have on the question of the enforcement of land charges—I do not think we have many—we all agree that all these problems would fall away like scales if there were a compulsory system of land registration. I fear that, as is the way with best-intentioned Government Departments, the Redcliffe-Maud Report and all the other Reports will be taken subconsciously as a reason for putting off this necessary task. They will, of course, have enormous problems in the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, if it is implemented, they may think it more urgent, and their attention will be diverted to that problem. But I hope that, having had an important undertaking from the Solicitor-General, we shall all see that he is kept to it.
At the moment, the areas of compulsory registration are peculiar. The hon. Member for Bolton, West has his constituency well within an area of compulsory registration now. I have half my


constituency in an area of compulsory registration in Blackburn, but between Blackburn and his constituency there are the non-county borough of Darwen and the urban district of Turton, which are not within an area of compulsory registration, although it is built-up very nearly all the way. This anomaly is not good. I hope that the Solicitor-General will use his influence to see that much larger areas are much more rapidly brought into the modern system of conveying.
I know that the experience of solicitors is not wholly happy about the system of conveying registered land. I am still a great believer in it. I think that it can be greatly improved, particularly by the inclusion on the compulsory register of local land charges. That is an essential reform and, until it is done, many of the great merits of a system of compulsory registration will not be gained.
As my hon. Friend said, we welcome the parts of the Bill, and they are the majority, which provide a good basis of reform. The Solicitor-General described it as a modest Bill, but it has a very immodest title, as his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West implied. It makes great claims for the reforming zeal of the Government of which he is a member, and this is not the first time that has happened. The Consumer Protection Bill has to be cut down to size in Committee by being given its true title of Trade Descriptions Act, and I dare say that something on those lines will have to be done when we come to Committee on the present Measure.

Mr. James Allason: Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I am not a lawyer but a property owner and manager. Owners, managers and business tenants have an equal interest in the results of the Bill, and I hope that it will not go down in history as purely a lawyers' Bill.
I take, first, Clause 22(4):
For the purposes of this section any knowledge acquired in the course of a transaction by a person who is acting therein as counsel or as solicitor or other agent, for another shall be treated as the knowledge of that other.
That is probably extremely convenient for lawyers and, I take it, estate agents, but it is not all that convenient for principals. Everyone who has been concerned

with transactions in land has found mistakes which have been made. Let us say that they have been mistakes of estate agents and not always mistakes of lawyers, but, nevertheless, mistakes are made and ultimately those mistakes will fall on the head of the principal. It may be the correct legal fiction to say that the onus must fall on the head of the principal, but it seems a rather unfortunate approach to accuse the principal of having known all along that which has been concealed from him, which he did not know anything about, and which may be a very painful event for him, the principal.
I turn now to Clause 4, which, as the Solicitor-General told us, deals with the fairly narrow point of the landlord being able to deal with subtenants at the same time as tenants on the expiration of a lease. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, the position in relation to the determination of leases and subtenancies is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Here is an example. A tenant of business premises created a subtenancy. Then, just as his lease was due to expire, which he did not wish to renew, he assigned the lease at a handsome consideration to the subtenant. The subtenant then immediately and automatically became the tenant under the 1954 Act. He was entitled to a new lease, and, as soon as he received the new lease under the 1954 Act, he was able to sell it to an entirely outside body at a considerable profit to himself. As I say, the position of subtenants in relation to the determination of leases requires looking at.
I have another case of which I shall tell the Committee. The lease has not yet expired. The tenant, in breach of his obligation, has divided the premises into an absolute rabbit-warren of tiny sub-tenancies. Legal action is at present going on to try to stop him doing this. It will not be effective because the lease will terminate before then, and the tenant will, presumably, not get a new lease under the 1954 Act. He will probably disappear, but all those subtenancies will now become entitled to deal with the landlord and, presumably, be able to claim fresh leases. It is possible to do this only by having somebody to sit on the premises as the tenant does at the moment in order to sublet the various compartments, by the hour, by the week, or


perhaps for longer periods. It is necessary to have someone on the premises.
It is quite unreasonable that that sort of inheritance should be passed on to the landlord, yet it can happen. I can visualise that it is possible for a tenant, who is in any case intending to give up his long tenancy of business premises, to put in subtenants expressly to spite his landlord. The whole area of subtenancies in relation to the 1954 Act must, therefore, be looked at.
Although the hon. and learned Solicitor-General told us that all that Clause 4 did was to put the landlord in a better position, it does say:
… the landlord shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part of this Act other than section 28, to be the landlord in relation also to the sub-tenancy …
That seems to me, as a layman, to give the subtenant greater rights than he has at the present. We know that he has considerable rights under the 1954 Act. We ought to look at this very carefully to ensure that this is not an extension of the rights of subtenants. Many of them may be worthy people, but I have in mind those subtenants whom I deem to be unworthy.
I hope that we shall have an interesting time in Committee, and I hope also that we shall remember that the purpose of Parliament is to uphold the sanctity of contract. Even if it be a restrictive contract, we should still remember that.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by covering ground which has been ably and adequately covered already, but there are one or two points which require reinforcement, and I shall devote a moment or two to those.
First, the question of registration and title to land. The point has already been made by my hon. Friends, but it is a matter of such major importance that it must be re-emphasised, that the end of the 1970s is far too long to wait for the bringing in of registration throughout the United Kingdom. Voluntary registration also is a matter of importance. If the system of voluntary registration still existed today, we should not have the kind of problem referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) when he spoke of the need to deduce the title of large estates which

have been broken up into small plots on development. It was a retrograde step on the part of the Government to abolish voluntary registration, as they did in recent legislation. One can see no reason why the Treasury should wish to starve the Land Registry of staff. It is only that which has prevented a far more rapid development of the land registration system.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has already referred to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in another place, when he said that the Land Registry is one of the departments of Government which is a money-maker. Apart from that, in terms of the individual buying and selling land, registration of title is a great economy. From all aspects, one cannot begin to understand the shortsightedness of depriving the Land Registry of the means of expediting land registration. If the Government would give further thought to that, Part III would become largely unnecessary, without causing some of the concern that it is bound to do.
My hon. and learned Friend has already expressed doubt about the wisdom of reducing the title period to 15 years. I do not want to go into that argument again, but I have found as a practising solicitor that old deeds and old titles are invaluable in elucidating problems and answering many questions. Perhaps it is because the old-fashioned solicitor's clerk of many years ago, who laboriously wrote out deeds in his copper-plate, was a very meticulous gentleman who took great care in his conveyancing and the preparation of his plans. Where those deeds still exist, they are of great help to the modern solicitor in defining the rights of his client. More recent titles do not give the same assistance. The danger, when the 15 years root title is introduced before land registration has come about, will be that many of those old deeds will be turned into lampshades, will no longer exist, and they will cease to be the help they are today.
I have great reservations, despite all the learned arguments which the Law Commission brought forth, with, I know, the support of the Law Society, about the wisdom of introducing this 15-year root of title before land registration and the


deposit of deeds in the Land Registry and examination there has come about.
There is nothing in the Bill, either—one has in mind the change from constructive to actual notice on the part of a purchaser as regards land charges—which does away with the appalling inconvenience of having to search against names rather than against property. This also is something which will only be cured, and can only be cured, when there is compulsory registration of title and the existing land charges register is abolished altogether. It ought to be added here. There ought to be a sense of urgency, because the land charges register as it exists in its present form for unregistered titles is a matter of great inconvenience, and there are always the inherent dangers of not knowing precedent evidence.
I am not sure that the provision for compensation will be sufficient, because this in itself will lead to problems and litigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has pointed to the difficulty which a vendor, perhaps an innocent vendor, will be in when there has been a rapid change of property and nothing has turned up on the title, despite several transactions. Which vendor will be landed with the compensation? Will it be a vendor three, four or five removed who may have had some knowledge, or will it be an intervening vendor who may have bought and resold the land without knowledge of these matters at all? And what is the compensation to be? There is no indication in the Bill, no guidance for the Chief Land Registrar on how he must calculate the compensation and certainly no guidance for the purchaser who is left with the title subject to a restriction that he knew nothing about.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby also that is it important that the Government tackle early—one would like to see it in this Bill—the problem of positive covenants which at present do not run with the land. Matters which might at first sight may appear to be minor, for example, the obligation to repair and rebuild fences between houses, the obligation to repair drains serving houses in common, are not likely to be the subject of great national legislation, but they are matters constantly

giving rise to friction between adjoining land owners. It does not help at all when positive covenants imposed by deeds dealing with matters of that kind are unenforceable between adjoining owners because there have been various transfers in the ownership of the properties concerned. Certainty in such matters is highly desirable and would eliminate much bad feeling between neighbours. I can see no reason, having regard to the many years over which this problem has existed, why the Government cannot apply their mind to its solution now.
There is also the matter of local land charges and, in particular, proposals for development of adjoining land. Today, if a purchaser buying a particular house and garden makes a search against that property in the local land charges register with the local authority, he will find matters relating to the property but he will not be told whether the adjoining landowner has received permission to build an outhouse or a balcony which will overshadow a window so as to spoil a room the attractiveness of which persuaded him to buy the particular house in the first place. After being there six months, he suddenly finds that an addition has been built to the next-door house which ruins his view, excludes his light, or brings some objectionable obstruction which, if he had known about it, might well have influenced his decision to buy.
This is the sort of matter which a prospective purchaser ought to know when he is buying a house. The amenity of a house is of great importance to him. The difficulty could be cured by extension of a local land charges register to include matters of that kind. It would be better still if it could be brought on to the Land Charges Register entirely.
There are two other matters which have not been touched on so far. The first relates to the question under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. We are told in the Bill now that improvements carried out by the tenant are in certain circumstances to be disregarded for the purpose of fixing a new rent for a new letting. The wording of the Bill follows the recommendation of the Law Commissioners, who gave it as their opinion that the improvements to be disregarded should be so disregarded
only if there has been no subsequent break in the chain of tenancies so the landlord will


not lose the rental value of improvements for which a previous tenant has already claimed, or has been in a position to claim, compensation.
I quote there from the explanatory note on page 25 of the Law Commission Report No. 17.
One can understand that, where a landlord has paid compensation for improvements under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, it would be wrong for the tenant to have the benefit because then the landlord would be made to lose twice over. But I cannot see why the tenant cannot have the benefit of this new provision in the Bill when he has been in a position to claim compensation under the 1927 Act but has, in fact, not done so. If the landlord has not paid the compensation, and is not liable any longer to pay it, it would not be financially detrimental to him for the Bill to operate. Perhaps that is a matter which could receive further consideration in Committee.
Finally, the question of the unscrupulous tenant who has spun out litigation for a number of years, with the result that the landlord has been deprived of the market rental of his premises. Perhaps there has been the odd case where a tenant, or his legal advisers, knowing the ropes in the county court, has been able to protract litigation in that way. Where that has happened, on the whole, the landlord must have been slow on the uptake and not made his applications to the county court. Or, alternatively—this is the more likely—the defect exists in the county court system itself because of the burden of work. I do not think that it is so much the unscrupulous tenant who has brought the situation about. I think that the cause lies in the fact that the county courts are overburdened and cannot cope with all the work confronting them.

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend should remember that, although the applications may have gone to the court, if the negotiations are proceeding the matter does not come into court. The unscrupulous tenant can prolong his negotiations for a long time. I must say, as an "unscrupulous landlord", that I now intend to pay it back until three months after the Bill becomes law in a case which is happening to me.

Mr. Rossi: But it is up to the landlord how long he is prepared to allow himself to be strung along in that fashion. I should have thought, if he was sufficiently wide awake, that he would not. I have an example in mind. There was a case five or six years ago concerning a landlord's desire to redevelop premises, and because of all the evidence which had to be given by surveyors and experts on both sides to decide whether it was a genuine scheme, the hearing lasted six days of the county court's time. But because of the practice in that particular county court—I do not wish to name it—only one day was given each time for a sitting and between each sitting day there was a gap of three or four months because the lists were so crowded.
It was the desire of neither landlord nor tenant that that should be so. In the event, the landlord was defeated; it was proved that he did not have a genuine scheme. But the tenant then had his rent fixed by a county court judge at a figure which the tenant thought he could not afford anyway. The result was that the tenant had to leave the premises. It all took about 18 months of litigation, spread over six hearing days with large gaps in between. Simply because the county court's business is organised in that fashion.
12.45 p.m.
I think that that is where the real defect exists. If it were possible for these cases to be brought on rapidly and dealt with in one go, instead of spreading out sittings in that way, much of the need for this legislation would, I believe, disappear. I think it only right to make a comment of that kind. We are much concerned with the administration of justice. If there is a glaring defect—I believe that it is not only my experience but the experience of other members of my profession—perhaps a suggestion might go to the Lord Chancellor to look at the system more carefully.

The Solicitor-General: No one who has listened to the debate can fail to have been impressed, if I may say so, by the constructive force of the contributions which have been made from both sides and the amount of knowledge contained in them. I rise, if I may have leave, merely to deal with one or two matters in the short time which remains.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was a little grudging, not to say ungracious, in his reception of the Bill. No doubt, there are matters far removed from the law of property which may be causing him dismay of one kind or another, but, none the less, we shall pay the most careful regard to his observations.
The hon. Gentleman regretted, and the matter was referred to later by most hon. Members who contributed to our discussion, the extent to which there has been a suspension of the process of land registration. I want to say a few words about that. As the Committee will be aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General recently announced in the House the resumption of the land registration programme, with the partial lifting of manpower restrictions. He indicated that the areas to be included by the end of the year include Liverpool, Nottingham, Newcastle, Luton and Plymouth.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby made a point about the hiatus which might occur in Yorkshire before land registration is extended. The position is that the programme throughout the country is to be extended to built-up areas first, so there are bound to be, inescapably, I fear, substantial rural areas to which the system cannot be extended until towards the end of the 1970s. The system depends upon adequate Ordnance maps, and the mapping of rural Yorkshire is, I am told, not yet adequate for the purpose. But every effort is being made, I assure the Committee, to deal with this matter of registration.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), for whose contribution I was greatly indebted intimated that he regarded what I had to say about the proposed extension of registered conveyancing as a pledge. It takes two to make a pledge, or, at least, it takes two to agree what is a pledge. I should not wish to have gone further, or be thought to have gone further, than to give the Committee, as I thought it right to do, a reiteration of plans already announced by my noble Friend to extend compulsory registration to all built-up areas by the middle of the

1970s and to the rest of the country by the end of the 1970s. That is the plan and I do not want to go beyond that. The somewhat emotive expression "pledge" will now, I hope, be considered in that milder context.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) deplored the abolition of voluntary registration. However, I suggest to him—I appreciate his understanding of these matters and I should be glad if he would agree—that that was essential if the work of the Land Registry was to be concentrated on the extension of compulsory registration, which must be the first priority. Voluntary registration in non-compulsory areas are very expensive in man-power and some multiple voluntary registrations are still accepted.
A good deal of reference has been made to the 15-year root of title and hon. Members have asked whether it was too short a period. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) suggested that many defects in title may have occurred in the course of the 1939 to 1946 period. I follow that, but he may be overlooking the effect of the Limitation Act and of the circumstance that in most instances the 12-year period of limitation would have cured the greater part of these defects. That, at any rate, is an aspect of the matter which he might be good enough to consider. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) mentioned, and this has been acknowledged by others, the Law Commission's recommendation as to the 15-year root of title is based upon a recommendation by the Law Society.
I was asked about the effect of Section 23(8) and the vendor being liable in fraud in the event of non-disclosure of defects. I should like to read these observations and give them further consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West mentioned the need for computerisation. Computerisation of land charges is already planned. The Law Commission has been studying computerisation of local land charges. A reference to this, for any hon. Member who is interested, will be found in paragraph 30 of the Commission's Third Annual Report.
The hon. Member for Crosby referred to the failure, as he put it, to deal with local land charges. That was mentioned,


with some emphasis, also by the hon. Member for Hornsey. The Bill does not deal with these charges, because they are the subject of further examination by the Law Commission. It is fair to say that in any event reforms under that head had better await the reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Graham Page: Oh, no!

The Solicitor-General: As the Committee is aware, the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee in its last report recommended legal aid for those appearing before the Lands Tribunal. The Lord Chancellor accepts this desirable aim, but in that connection one must have regard to the availability of public funds.
Hon. Members have shown a most acceptable and praiseworthy desire to make haste in changing and reforming many matters. I share with them the wish that there could be for example, a

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Probert, Mr. (Chairman.)
More, Mr.


Allason, Mr.
Oakes, Mr.


Archer, Mr.
Page, Mr. Graham


Atkins, Mr. Ronald
Pink, Mr.


Doig, Mr.
Rossi, Mr.


Fletcher-Cooke, Mr.
The Solicitor-General


Harper, Mr.
Wells, Mr. William


Jackson, Mr. Colin
Whitaker, Mr.

speedy implementation of at any rate some of the recommendations of the Wilberforce Report on Positive Covenants. I hope that it is true to say that on an objective view of the Bill, despite the somewhat lukewarm Laodicean commentaries of the hon. Member for Crosby, a useful series of steps forward are proposed which in due course will be regarded as not without importance.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Law of Property Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

The Solicitor-General: May I say, Mr. Probert, that we are all greatly indebted to you for the skill and courtesy with which you have conducted our affairs.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Committee rose at two minutes to One o'clock.